“If we are not serious about facts and what’s true and what’s not and particularly in the age of social media where so many people are getting their information in soundbites and snippets off their phones, if we can’t discriminate between serious arguments and propaganda, then we have problems. … [If we are] unable to compromise and engage in the democratic process and taking absolutism views … then democracy will break down.”

And I’ve got a face like this as he says it:

I mean, it’s not that Obama’s statement isn’t true, it’s just that the Obama who just said it just spent the last EIGHT YEARS daily living in denial of the wisdom he now espouses for his successor.

The particularly warped thing about Obama’s statement is that it came as a response to a question about “fake news” that emerged from Facebook. There are a couple of really remarkable things about this story: the first is that Facebook is not only about as leftist as it gets, but actively suppressed conservative news sites and slanted “trending news stories” to favor liberals and liberal sights. So it is frankly rather amazing on its ugly, pimply, Elephant-Man-FACE to make the ridiculous claim that Facebook’s “fake news” helped Trump win given the naked bias toward Democrats that the sight is now infamous for. But it actually gets WORSE: because in his answer, Obama agreed with communist China which takes the identical same position and has its suppression of free speech on the basis of the identical same position that it shares with Obama: that we can’t allow anything other than “facts and what’s true,” and the State must therefore take an active role in suppressing anything other than “the true facts.”

Obama’s strategy is to set aside and flatly ignore the law for his own political benefit. Every American who is not deeply troubled by that – troubled enough to not vote for this fascist – is Un-American.

What Obama has done is provide an example of out-and-out lawlessness on the part of the president of the United States. And when we get a hard-core right wing president the way Obama has been a hard-core left wing president, Obama and the Democrat Party and all of those who voted for Obama and the Democrat Party will be entirely to blame for that president and his extremist actions. You mark my words. Because what goes around comes around, and if a Democrat can set aside the law the way Obama has now repeatedly done, well, guess who’s going to be stomping on your necks under your own president’s prior justification??? Conservatives are rising up in a spirit of righteous outrage. You have repeatedly slapped us in the face through your messiah Obama, and the time is coming when we’re going to punch you hard in the nose and then keep on punching. And when that day comes, liberals, look to yourselves for blame.

If you are a Democrat and you don’t like President Donald Trump, get up right now from wherever you are, go to your kitchen, grab the heaviest cast iron frying pan you’ve got, and begin bashing yourself in the head with it until your skull is cracked open and whatever you numb wits call your brains are on the floor. BECAUSE YOU ARE MORE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE RISE OF DONALD TRUMP THAN ANYBODY.

And if Donald Trump governs the way Obama did and if the House and Senate govern the way the Nancy Pelosi House and the Harry Reid Senate did, whatever the hell happens is entirely your fault, and I spent the last eight years trying to warn you.

If Barack Obama had any humility and any honesty and any love for this nation whatsoever, he would hold a press conference and acknowledge that he was a horrifyingly terrible president, that he governed like nothing short of a tyrant king by executive fiat, that his entire political party had succumbed to a fascist disease, and that as a result his party suffered disaster; and that he can only plead, mea culpa, as the head of a broken party, that Donald Trump and the Republican Party would not engage in the same sort of Nazi tactics that his Democratic Party had engaged in. And then maybe we could have some chance of meaningful dialogue and debate and compromise.

Instead Obama is like the snooty, arrogant anthropology professor in a class that every student has either dropped or desperately wishes they COULD drop. And all he does is drone on and on analyzing everything that is wrong with the world from his incredibly narrow and ideologically-warped perspective. WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY DENYING HE HAS ONE.

Obama continues to prove he is nothing short of a naked fool who lives in a false reality presiding over a party of naked fools who live in a false reality.

Meanwhile the Democrat Party is proving by their own WORDS before the damn election that yes, THEY ARE THE PARTY OF FASCISM, as they VIOLENTLY AND DESTRUCTIVELY RIOT rather than accept the results of an election that went 306 to 232 electoral college votes and 31-19 states in favor of Trump. And Democrat states and cities are declaring that just like their god Obama, they TOO will defy laws they don’t like as they continue to impose their “sanctuary cities” policies no matter how blatantly contradictory they are to longstanding federal laws.

Look at the election map by county and you see what the overwhelming majority of the COUNTRY thinks about Democrats:

There’s a lot of stuff swirling around in the media right now. And it’s pretty much a wash. On the one hand, Hillary Clinton is SO damn guilty by any reasonable standard of both outright criminality and indifferent incompetence it is beyond unreal. Too bad the Washington Post decided to unleash thirty reporters to dig into Trump’s dirt rather than dig through Clinton’s emails, but this IS the age of Goebbels, after all. I’ve come to realize that one of two things is going to have to happen for Hillary Clinton to get indicted regardless of her obvious guilt: 1) the FBI from Director Comey on down promise to resign in mass and publicly expose Obama as being the Stalinist thug traitor that he is which would force him and his lawthug attorney general to allow true justice to take its course, OR Obama actually has a plan to allow Clinton to be indicted and then step in and declare that Donald Trump is such a threat to America and to democracy and to world peace that he has no choice other than to follow the path of the worst dictators in history and order the election (that Trump would have won) suspended.

On the other hand, we’ve got all these polls that say Trump is going to have an impossible time winning enough women, Hispanics and blacks to possibly win the election. To which I say that by now the entire media establishment has so thoroughly and completely discredited their ability to prognosticate what will actually happen that they have made themselves a joke. Trump has proven these fools wrong so many times it is beyond unreal. Their last giant mistake was the worst, when they gleefully predicted a vicious GOP feud leading up to a broken and brokered GOP convention and the entire Republican Party unraveling over Trump. And of course just as gleefully predicted smooth sailing for Hillary Clinton who would be crowed queen dominatrix over the space-time universe. And that was only two months ago. And what is happening now is the precise OPPOSITE of what all the damn experts said would happen, and now Democrats are wringing their hands and publicly worrying that Bernie Sanders is destroying Hillary Clinton’s chance to win.

I’m going to make a prediction that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with either of the above two paragraphs.

Allow me to state the twofold basis of my prediction succinctly: 1) Donald Trump will win because roughly 3/4ths of the American people believe we are heading in the wrong direction as a nation, and Hillary Clinton represents slogging down the path of that same wrong direction; versus Donald Trump who vows to shake things up. And every time Clinton tries to fearmonger the American people with her demagoguery that Trump is a “loose cannon,” Trump says “That’s right. And I’m going to start firing that cannon at everything that is preventing America from becoming great again.” Obama just played that game – in a reckless, bitterly partisan, demagogic attack on foreign soil no less – claimed that overseas leaders are “rattled” by the prospect of a Trump presidency. Without being able to name even ONE such leader, mind you. And ignoring the fact that every ally of the United States has been way more than “rattled” by the OBAMA presidency. And Trump heard that and basically said, “Good! These leaders have been abusing and exploiting America for years, and it’s a damn good thing if they’re rattled.” You want more of the wrong direction, Hillary is your candidate. She’ll lead you straight to the hell you and your family deserve to rot in.

The people of Venezuela tried socialism and their reward is SEVEN HOUR LINES for groceries with the government-supervised result being empty shelves when you get there. People are eating out of garbage cans because that’s all Obama’s socialist friends can provide for them. THAT is the assured result of continuing to travel in the direction Obama has set for us and Hillary Clinton has vowed to keep us heading in.

Between the colossal failure of ObamaCare, the horrible taxation rates and the godawful regulations and impositions on businesses, people simply cannot find a decent full-time job anymore. And Hillary Clinton promises you that she will take that crap ball and run down the manure field with it and spike that crap ball in the poop zone for a sh*tdown.

I’ll put it this way: there are a lot of people who will ultimately think, “Donald Trump can insult me all he wants. I just want to have a damn job and be able to work without some stupid jackass fascist liberal making that impossible.” And so a lot of people are going to say, “I hate Trump and I’m scared of Trump, but he’s better than a sure thing when that sure thing is a lump of sh*t – and that is exactly what Hillary Clinton is.”

I’ll give a personal story to add truth to that above paragraph. Recently, my 94 year-old next door neighbor – who had lived in that house for over forty years – was heartbroken and devastated when liberal government forced her to dig up her beautiful green lawn that she had her deceased husband had cultivated over all those years. It’s now gravelled and the only water allowed is the tears of an elderly widow. And that’s because some activist liberal turd drove by, saw that lawn, and became offended that somebody was happy on her own property and that was evil. Meanwhile, night after night after night I walk past a government indoctrination center that passes for a “public school.” And night after night after night I see the total indifference of government to do what it forces helpless citizens it oppresses to do. The water main right alongside the sidewalk is just spraying water and has been doing so for MONTHS.

There’s a good ten cubit feet of soil around that main that is just SATURATED from the all the damn wasted water from that constant leak. And no jackass fascist bureaucrat gives a flying damn about it. There are two public schools side-by-side – an elementary school and a middle school – and they BOTH routinely have so many water issues it’s beyond disgusting. But it doesn’t matter who I’ve contacted or what I’ve done; nobody fixes these things for months. Because it’s so far easier for a bureaucracy to harass and oppress an elderly widow than it is for those same jackbooted jackass bureaucrats to get off their own unionized asses and do their damn jobs. Because what’s right for me to impose on thee is to hard to comply with for me. Liberalism is about forcing OTHER people to comply with what they themselves don’t bother to do and then seizing OTHER people’s money to pay for it.

And I’ll tell you what: when my neighbor buckled under the threats of the liberal government, she had to fire her Hispanic gardeners who were paid to come twice a month and take care of that lawn. Because heavy-handed leftist fascist government thugs who are hypocrites to their lying cores took their jobs from them. And who should they vote for??? Should they vote for the liberals who will protect the Delta Smelt at all costs no matter how many human lives and jobs they destroy, or should they vote for the people who would not have cost them to lose their job in the first place???

Vote for Hillery. Vote for hell. Vote for more regulation that is going to strangle more jobs. Vote for more and bigger government that is going to be completely unresponsive to anyone who is not “in” with the politically-connected class.

So that’s one. And it’s a doozy. Hillary promises you that the exact same failed solutions that drove this country into a ditch will get us out when it will dig us even deeper into that ditch. Trump says he’s created tens of thousands of jobs by himself and he understands what entrepreneurs like him need to do the same for millions of Americans who just want to work rather than have a nanny-state give them welfare on the backs of other people.

It’s now common knowledge that without the nation’s first televised debate — fifty years ago Sunday — Kennedy would never have been president. But beyond securing his presidential career, the 60-minute duel between the handsome Irish-American senator and Vice President Richard Nixon fundamentally altered political campaigns, television media and America’s political history. “It’s one of those unusual points on the timeline of history where you can say things changed very dramatically — in this case, in a single night,” says Alan Schroeder, a media historian and associate professor at Northeastern University, who authored the book, Presidential Debates: Forty Years of High-Risk TV. […]

What happened after the two candidates took the stage is a familiar tale. Nixon, pale and underweight from a recent hospitalization, appeared sickly and sweaty, while Kennedy appeared calm and confident. As the story goes, those who listened to the debate on the radio thought Nixon had won. But those listeners were in the minority. By 1960, 88% of American households had televisions — up from just 11% the decade before. The number of viewers who tuned in to the debate has been estimated as high as 74 million, by the Nielsen of the day, Broadcast Magazine. Those that watched the debate on TV thought Kennedy was the clear winner. Many say Kennedy won the election that night.

In other words, if you were listening to that debate – and allowing your mind work unencumbered by your lying eyes – Nixon won. But add in all the visual whiz-bangs, and the image of a handsome, vigorous Kennedy, and Kennedy wiped the floor with Nixon. Because the facts were irrelevant and the image was everything.

And my thesis is that it has been that way ever since.

So let’s go down memory lane, from Reagan v. Carter in 1980. Who had more personality? More charisma? The actor kicked peanut farmer ass. Same thing when the actor destroyed Mondale in 1984. Then we get to his successor, H.W. Bush vs. Dukakis in 1988: well, it wasn’t like H.W. Bush was a “best personality” winner, but compared to the turnip someone named Michael Dukakis? H.W. in a landslide. But then that same H.W. Bush met Bill Clinton in 1992, and the handsome, vigorous man who slickly played saxophone on the hip show Arsenio Hall took the win. And we get to 1996, and who had more personality and charisma? Bill Clinton or Bob Dole, who looked like the angry old man yelling at neighborhood kids to get the hell off his lawn? That brings us to George W. Bush versus the wooden cigar store Indian otherwise known as Al Gore in 2000. And “Dubya” won. Or put it this way: “close is no cigar.” Same thing when “Dubya” took on John Kerry, who sounded like the stiffest and most pompous ass imaginable in 2004. Which brings us to our current national nightmare when a young, hip, charismatic, enigmatic figure named Barack Hussein Obama took on an old, white-haired decrepit named John McCain in 2008. And then took it away again from the GOP’s answer to the aforementioned wooden cigar store Indian when he defeated the chump known as Mitt Romney. And I can only wish that Romney had displayed the fire in his belly against Obama that he has recently displayed trying to take down Trump. And all that Romney has proven is that if you don’t like boring establishment Republican RINOs, vote for Trump because Romney proves Trump aint one.

I’m just saying that the American presidency is largely a personality cult, and who has more personality and charisma: old hag Hillery – whose been a lying politician since dinosaurs walked the earth – or Donald Trump the hero of reality T.V. that brings us back full circle to Kennedy winning because of fake reality television to kick it all off???

I’m declaring that when people start looking at Hillary and The Donald, Trump will exude so much more personality and charisma than the screaming witch that the American people will cast their lot with him. Hillery is actually and able debater, but she simply fails to connect with people because at her core – as her email mess and her secret server proves – she is a paranoid fascist who frankly can’t stand people being able to see her for what she truly is.

Hillary Clinton has proven over her entire career that she is the same “Fiefdom Syndrome” heartless, indifferent, tone-deaf lifelong bureaucrat-technocrat politician – especially as epitomized by Benghazi – who couldn’t be bothered to deal with the leaking water mains under her governance. It boils down to the five words, “What difference does it make?”

And the answer is “None at all; IF you want to go in the same miserable failed direction that leads to hell.” Otherwise it makes PLENTY of difference.

And so I predict Hillary will lose. Not because she’s is GODAWFUL (which is WHY she should lose) but because she is BORING. Because of a mindset that has been around for fifty years which has worked for and against both parties and to the betterment as well as the harm of this nation.

The black workforce is decreasing, down from 58.6% in June 2007 to 52.8% in August 2012.

The median minority family’s income is now almost fifth lower than it was when Obama took office with a net worth of just $18,100.

In contrast, white median wealth has increased by 1% to $142,000.

In 2009, white households were 7 times richer than black households. Now, white households are 8 times richer.

Tavis Smiley – no friend whatsoever to conservatives – said this about Barack Obama when asked the following direct question by Donald Trump’s bane, Megyn Kelly:

Megyn Kelly: On the subject of race, are we better off today that seven years ago?

Tavis Smiley: I’m not sure we are and I think ultimately the president missed a moment… On every leading economic issue, in the leading economic issues Black Americans have lost ground in every one of those leading categories. So in the last ten years it hasn’t been good for black folk. This is the president’s most loyal constituency that didn’t gain any ground in that period.

Blacks have lost ground ON EVERY SINGLE ECONOMIC CATEGORY ACROSS THE BOARD. A vote for a Democrat is a vote to cut your own throat, especially if you are in one of the racial classes that racist Democrats most racially demagogue.

So I came across an article that described the massive black exodus from the liberal West Coast cities mostly to the GOP-bastion southern states, and every black person ought to be told about this. What is going on? It’s pretty simple: if you want to live your life as a worthless loser on the dole, the Democrat Party is the “massah” for you. Don’t you worry, jigaboos, the white man knows you are his burden and you’ll get your meager portion of gruel. The only downside to this arrangement is that that is ALL you will ever be allowed to get for the rest of your lives; because it is literally in the interest of the Democrat Party to keep you down, to keep you poor, because otherwise you would have your own wealth and you not only won’t need the Democrat dole machine, but you would actually become a threat to them as you start voting in such a manner to protect what you earn from your hard work from government taxes; you’ll resent the government regulations that strangle your economic growth. Massa can’t have that on his plantation.

Again, I can point to reliably leftist sources to acknowledge my basic facts. Take the very-left leaning Atlantic title and subtitle:

But San Francisco’s problem is bigger than San Francisco. Across the country, rich, dense cities are struggling with affordable housing, to the considerable anguish of their middle class families.

San Francisco’s problem is bigger than San Francisco. Across the country, rich, dense cities are struggling with affordable housing, to the considerable anguish of their middle class families.

Among the 100 largest U.S. metros, 63 percent of homes are “within reach” for a middle-class family, according to Trulia. But among the 20 richest U.S. metros, just 47 percent of homes are affordable, including a national low of 14 percent in San Francisco. The firm defined “within reach” as a for-sale home with a total monthly payment (including mortgage and taxes) less than 31 percent of the metro’s median household income.

If you line up the country’s 100 richest metros from 1 to 100, household affordability falls as household income rises, even after you consider that middle class families in richer cities have more income.

So this brings us to the story of the Democrat Party’s demand for “fair wages” by imposing a $15 minimum wage on every single business whether it can afford it or not. I most recently wrote about that on April 4 of this year. And in that article I documented what happens every single time the left pulls one of these shenanigans. It raises costs on businesses FAR BEYOND the minimum wage, because just for starters it increases the wages of every single worker across the board (i.e., imagine you were making $2 an hour above the minimum wage workers below you at a business; are you now going to earn less than the minimum wage workers, or are you now going to get $17 an hour? It goes up the scale, which is why the unions wanted it and fought so hard for it even though these hypocrite weasels themselves continued to pay substandard wages to the workers they hired to picket and demagogue the cities and states to impose those wages.

It’s not just true of blacks, it’s true of Hispanics as well; it’s true of poor people in general. If you take Democrat’s demagogic policies on illegal immigration, for instance, just consider a fundamental principle of economics known as “the law of supply and demand.” The greater the supply of something, the lower demand for that thing will be. Realize that when you massively increase the supply of poor, unskilled labor, the value of poor, unskilled labor goes down dramatically. Which is why wages for unskilled labor have so plummeted, thank you, liberals.

And so the same damnfools who forced your wages down are now attempting to arbitrarily force them up. So they devastated you by gutting your earning power, and now they’re going to respond by devastating you again by sending already high costs of living into the stratosphere.

Some businesses will go out of businesses, many others will lay off quite a few of their workers and strip their operation down to the bone to stay alive. But of the business that remain, one thing is FOR CERTAIN: they will raise their prices and pass their increased costs onto their customers. And that is merely one of myriad ways that liberals force the cost of living to go up and up and up again and then up some more. Your groceries will cost more and your housing will cost more; and your costs will increase significantly more than the meager boost in wages because Democrats boosted the cost of everything all the way up the chain.

No president has ever been better for the filthy rich than the most dishonest president in American history, Barack Obama. Under his incredibly dishonest and hypocritical regime, income inequality – the gap between the richest and poorest Americans – skyrocketed. Again, I turn to a reliably leftist source in the Huffington Post:

Saez, who’s known for his work on the income gap, has highlighted a surprising and discouraging fact: during the post-recession period of 2009 and 2010, the rich snagged a greater share of total income growth than they did during the boom years of 2002 to 2007.

In other words, inequality has been even more pronounced under Obama than it was under George W. Bush.

You might likewise not be surprised if you already knew that some household-goods companies are catering to this new reality by quietly neglecting their mid-price product lines, focusing instead on their high-end and budget offerings, since wages are diverging so much. Or if you knew that the U.S. ranks closer to China, Serbia and Rwanda than any other country in the developed world when it comes to income inequality.

The disease of Obama is similar to the disease of alcoholism; you’re dying because you kept turning more and more to what was in fact killing you. If you’re a Democrat – and especially if you’re a poor Democrat and most especially if you’re a racial minority Democrat – you’ve succumbed to a diseased pattern of thinking; you have been deceived into believing that what is in actual fact poisoning you and killing you is somehow helping you.

And I believe the metaphor of addiction best describes why so many groups cling to what is killing them: because the more Democrat poison they imbibe, the weaker and sicker they become, the less able to make good decisions. To the end result that it doesn’t matter how horrible this crap is for you, you keep taking it. You’ve lost the will and the ability to do anything else. If you’re a drug addict, you give up your volition to your substance; if you’re a Democrat, you give up your volition to your government. And either way you end up with your soul sucked out of you.

Democrats need you to depend on them; they need you to be flat on your back. They will NEVER allow you to get off your back and earn your own way because if that happened you would vote those weasels out of office who want to seize what you earn and redistribute your wealth to other deceived people. Because these are the kinds of things you have to be fool enough to believe to keep being a Democrat:

If Democrats raise my taxes, I’ll have more money

If Democrats bring in 12-20 million more illegal immigrants to compete for my job, my labor will be worth more

If Democrats raise the cost of living, I’ll be better off

If Democrats impose restrictive planning regulations, my house or apartment will cost less

he Black Lives Matter movement has brought the challenges facing black America to the fore, and introduced racially conscious quality-of-life questions into the national debate. How are black residents in America’s cities faring? And how are those cities doing in meeting the aspirations of their black residents, judged especially by the ultimate barometer: whether blacks choose to move to these cities, or stay in them?

Though results vary to some extent, the broad trend is clear: West Coast progressive enclaves are either seeing an exodus of blacks or are failing to attract them. Midwestern and Northeastern urban areas are attracting blacks to the extent that they are affordable or providing middle class economic opportunities. And Southern cities are now experiencing the most significant gains.

Portland is part of the fifth-whitest major metropolitan area in America. Almost 75% of the region is white, and it has the third-lowest percentage of blacks, at only 3.1%. (America as a whole is 13.2% black.) Portland proper is often portrayed as a boomtown, but the city’s shrinking black population doesn’t seem to think so. The city has lost more than 11.5% of its black residents in just four years. It’s similar to Seattle, where the central city’s black population has fallen as the overall region’s has grown.

Lower down the coast, the San Francisco Bay area has lost black residents since 2000, though recent estimates suggest that it may have halted the exodus since 2010. San Francisco proper is only 5.4% black, and the rate is falling. The Los Angeles metro area, too, has fewer black residents today than in 2000.

If these figures merely reflected black consumer choice, they wouldn’t necessarily matter; but the evidence suggests that specific public policies in these cities are to blame. Primary among them are restrictive planning regulations, common along the West Coast, that make it hard to expand the supply of housing. In a market with rising demand and static supply, prices go up.

As a rule, a household should spend no more than three times its annual income on a home. But in West Coast markets, housing-price levels far exceed that benchmark — a hardship that more severely affects blacks than whites because blacks start from further behind economically. Black median household income is only $35,481 a year, compared with $57,355 for whites. The wealth gap is even wider, with median black household wealth at only $7,133, compared with $111,146 for whites.

According to the Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey, the “median multiple” — the median home price divided by the median household income — should average about 3.0. But the median multiple is 5.1 in Portland, 5.2 in Seattle, 9.4 in San Francisco and 8.1 in Los Angeles.

“West Coast progressive enclaves are either seeing an exodus of blacks or are failing to attract them.”

Even some on the left recognize how development restrictions hurt lower- and middle-income people. Liberal commentator Matt Yglesias has called housing affordability “Blue America’s greatest failing.” Yglesias and others criticize zoning policies that mandate single-family homes, or approval processes, like that in San Francisco, that prohibit as-of-right development and allow NIMBYism to keep out unwanted construction — and, by implication, unwanted people.

These commentators, however, ignore the role of environmental policy in creating these high housing prices. Portland, for example, has drawn a so-called urban-growth boundary that severely restricts land development and drives up prices inside the approved perimeter. The development-stifling effects of the California Environmental Quality Act are notorious. California also imposes some of the nation’s toughest energy regulations, putting a financial burden on lower-income (and disproportionately black) households. Nearly 1 million households in the state spend 10% or more of their income on energy bills, according to a Manhattan Institute report by Jonathan Lesser.

It’s not just liberal Western cities that are losing their black residents — many economically struggling Midwestern cities have the same problem. Detroit, Cleveland, Flint, and Youngstown all have declining black populations.

The greatest demographic transition is taking place in Chicago. A black population loss of 177,000 accounted for the lion’s share of the city’s total shrinkage during the 2000s. Another 53,000 blacks have fled the city since 2010. In fact, the entire metro Chicago area lost nearly 23,000 blacks in aggregate, the biggest decline in the United States.

But in northern cities with more robust middle-class economies, black populations are expanding. Since 2010, for example, metro Indianapolis added more than 19,000 blacks (6.9% growth), Columbus more than 25,000 (9%), and Boston nearly 40,000 (10.2%). New York’s and Philadelphia’s black population growth rates are low but positive, in line with slow overall regional growth.

The somewhat unlikely champion for northern black population growth is Minneapolis-St. Paul. Since 2010, the black population in the city has grown by 15,000 people, or 23%. The region added 30,400 black residents, growing by 12.1%.

Like Portland and Seattle, Minneapolis is considered a liberal stronghold. But, unlike those West Coast cities, it has cultivated a development environment that keeps housing affordable, with a home-price median multiple of only 3.2.

Similarly, in Columbus (with a median multiple of 2.9) and Indianapolis (also 2.9), black families can afford the American dream. (Boston, with its high housings costs, is an outlier.)

Where else are black Americans moving? One destination dominates: the South. A century ago, blacks were leaving the South to go north and west; today, they are reversing that journey, in what the Manhattan Institute’s Daniel DiSalvo dubbed “The Great Remigration.” DiSalvo found that black Americans now choose the South in pursuit of jobs, lower costs and taxes, better public services (notably, schools) and sunny weather for retirement.

Historically, Southern blacks lived in rural areas. A large rural black population remains in the South today, often living in the same types of conditions as rural whites, which is to say, under significant economic strain. But the new black migrants to the South are increasingly flocking to the same metro areas that white people are — especially Atlanta, the new cultural and economic capital of black America, with a black population of nearly 2 million. The Atlanta metro area, one-third black, continues to add more black residents (150,000 since 2010) than any other region.

In Texas, Dallas has drawn 110,000 black residents (11.3% growth) and Houston just under 100,000 (9.2%) since 2010. Miami, with its powerful Latino presence that includes Afro-Latinos, also added about 100,000 blacks (8.3%). Today, Dallas, Houston, and Miami are all home to more than 1 million black residents.

Many smaller southern cities — including Charlotte, Orlando, Tampa, and Nashville — are seeing robust black population growth as well.

Not surprisingly, these southern cities are extremely affordable. A combination of pro-business policies combined with a development regime that permits housing supply to expand as needed has proved a winner. (Among these southern cities, only Miami, with its massive influx of Latin American wealth, is rated as unaffordable, with a median multiple of 5.6.)

When it comes to how state and local policies affect black residents’ choices about where to live, cities with the West Coast model of liberalism are the worst performing.

These results should be troubling to progressives touting West Coast planning, economic, and energy policies as models for the nation. If wealthy cities like San Francisco and Portland — where progressives have near-total political control — can’t produce positive outcomes for working-class and middle-class blacks, why should we expect their approach to succeed anywhere else?

Aaron M. Renn is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor of City Journal. This piece has been adapted from the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal.

Who would have guessed that pro-business policies, zoning laws that prefer people over leftist environmentalist whining, fewer regulations, and the abandonment of leftist (Stalinist) top-down planning would win? Other than anyone who is NOT A DAMN FOOL???

Democrats guarantee that they will make black people poorer and more dependent. And all Democrats have is demagoguery and lies piled on top of more demagoguery and more lies. But I’ll just end by quoting Forrest Gump:

Okay, that’s good but it doesn’t quite go far enough to describe why we’re where we’re at today. So let me instead end with John Wayne:

I don’t know how many times I’ve heard “even Reagan” attacks on Republicans from liberals such as, “Even Reagan raised taxes,” or “Even Reagan granted amnesty to illegal immigrants.”

I mean, Reagan cut the damn taxes, okay? Can we please stop the bullcrap? The top rate went from 70% to 28% under the Reagan tax cut which ignited the economy like nothing ever has before or since. You’ve got to be not only a fool but a DAMNFOOL – which unfortunately is a synonym for “Democrat” – to try to argue that Reagan “raised taxes.” If some taxes went up, while most taxes went down and the overall tax rate went WAY down, it’s pretty pathetic to cling to the couple of times that Reagan raised some minor tax to try to argue against the FACT that Reagan cut taxes. And yet the left does it all the time.

I googled the phrase (with quotes) “even Reagan” and got 27,700 hits, including the first one from the New York Slimes titled, “ObamaCare and Reagan.” The author’s thesis is apparently that Reagan was a confused man who didn’t understand socialism (you know, because he only understood it enough to defeat the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics against the steadfast resistance of the Democrat Party whose mantra had become, “If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em”). If you search for “Even Ronald Reagan” you get another 33,800 results, with the first one being titled, “Even Ronald Reagan Agrees With Bernie Sanders.” Oh yes, Ronnie would be a wild-eyed socialist today, wouldn’t he, you deluded liberals?

This actually isn’t about Reagan, although if any group of people on earth would refuse to allow a dead man to rest in peace, it would most assuredly be liberals. This is about the current conservative view on policy issues and the left’s rhetorical game to take down those conservatives.

First of all, it’s kind of interesting for the left to play the “Even Reagan” game. If you actually believe that what Reagan believed wasn’t right, why on earth would you ask someone to hold to the views of a guy you say is ignorant? Isn’t that kind of crazy of you to do? I mean, do you want to say “Even Hitler…” in a way intended to make one side hold more closely to Adolf Hitler’s policies? It’s like virtually all other leftist talking points: it’s a word game. It’s actually a pretty stupid one.

Let me explain what is so desperately wrong with this attack and why the left keeps advancing it by a parallel argument: “Even Jimmy Carter was opposed to abortion.” As president, Jimmy Carter said, “I am convinced that every abortion is an unplanned tragedy, brought about by a combination of human errors and this has been one of the most difficult moral and political issues I have had to face. As president, I accepted my obligation to enforce the “Roe v. Wade” Supreme Court ruling, and at the same time attempted in every way possible to minimize the number of abortions.” Hardly a triumphant shout of “women have the right to choose to kill as many of their babies as they want to and let the fathers of those babies rights be damned!” statement; it was a regretful, “This is wrong, but I have no choice” statement. So even Jimmy Carter believed abortion was a “tragedy.” And why shouldn’t you be flash-frozen to that view the way you want to flash-freeze me to Regan’s views?

Even Jimmy Carter didn’t believe in …” and you name it, you could certainly advance that thesis if you want to compare Carter’s stated views and policies to Obama’s.

But on the left’s incredibly disingenuous and profoundly hypocritical narrative, only Democrats have the right to have any evolution of their views. Democrats have “evolved” a damn MILE, but let Republicans evolve an INCH and they are therefore on this incredibly hypocritical narrative without any question a bunch of extremists.

Which party has actually wildly veered into extremism??? It sure couldn’t be the damn party that urinated on the entire history of the human civilization in imposing homosexual marriage, let alone their precious Darwinian evolution and it’s edict of “survival of the fittest” defined as “Survival of the form that will leave the most copies of itself in successive generations.” Good luck fertilizing an egg by all the sodomy in the world, queers. And if you’re a lesbian, keep licking furiously; but if you’ve got a functioning brain cell in your head, you ought to know naught will come from it beyond the hairballs you cough up.

One party not only utterly abandoned the history of civilization, not only abandoned the history of every major religion, but also abandoned the very pretense of science they claimed they held the mantle of. But it’s not like they went “extremist” or anything.

I think we should “fundamentally transform” our calendars and start with BS: “Before Sodomy.” Because one rabidly extremist political party wildly transformed the universe (in a shockingly depraved way).

If you’re a Democrat, you are at this point by definition a hypocrite to the last cell of your vile little cockroach brain, so there is absolutely NOTHING WRONG with MASSIVE SHIFTS in policy; if you are a Republican, however, any change is somehow defined as a “radical” and as an “extremist” shift toward some demagogic monster.

Since Democrats love the mantra “even Ronald Reagan…” let’s punch them in the mouth with a little bit of “Even Bill Clinton…”

Mrs. Clinton, back in the 1990s your husband concluded the North American Free Trade Agreement, signed legislation repealing the Glass-Steagall restrictions on affiliations between banks and securities firms, and embraced welfare reform and cuts in capital gains taxes. In 1996, he famously declared “the era of big government is over.”

Today you are running on a pro-tax, pro-regulation, pro-spending platform that is almost the opposite of your husband’s economic record. If his policies worked so well in the 1990s, why are you running against them today?

I mean, EVEN BILL CLINTON… not that Democrats give a flying damn about their wild swing into the most extremist policies imaginable even compared to their last Democrat president.

There is a constant, unwavering attempt by the mainstream media and the Democrat Party and in particular the most demagogic president in the entire history of the republic, Obama, to demonize and slander the Republican Party has having become “extremist.” And their most darling argument to that bogus end is the “even Reagan” mantra. Reagan was a great president. But he was last president very nearly thirty years ago.

How about this one, “Even Reagan” leftist lecturers: how about “EVEN OBAMA”

On the debt:

Obama: The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents – #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic. — July 3, 2008

What’s the damn debt again, you demon-possessed HYPOCRITE??? It’s $18.5 trillion and skyrocketing by the nanosecond. You’ve added NINE TRILLION by your lonesome and you aint even DONE yet!

“I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. For me, as a Christian, it’s also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.”

Oops. So much for gay marriage. “Even Obama!” I mean, holy crap, what about THAT “even Obama” compared to your current precise opposite “even Obama”!!!???!!!???

How about this “even Hillary” from Hillary, who now is actually trying to claim that her installation of a secretive private server giving her sole control over her emails so that she could purge tens of thousands of them without ANYONE being allowed to examine them even after her secret server and all of her emails on it had been lawfully subpoenaed by Congress? Consider what Hillary said about the Bush White House that did NOT use secretive private servers:

HILLARY CLINTON: You know our Constitution is being shredded. We know about the secret wiretaps, about the secret military tribunals, we know about the secret White House email accounts.

So Hillary Clinton needs to be thoroughly investigated and convicted for her shredding the Constitution. EVEN HILLARY agrees. At least when she’s not being an abject cockroach hypocrite.

We’re not talking about a party “evolving” over thirty years; we’re talking about a party that swung wildly and radically extremist in ONE CANCEROUS PRESIDENCY that now seeks to further infest and infect America with THE NEXT CANCEROUS PRESIDENCY.

Every single Democrat or “journalist” who has ever used any phrase containing the words “even” and “Reagan” is simply demon-possessed. There is no other way to explain such massive hypocrisy and such massive dishonesty and such massive depravity.

Barack Obama has just as massively “fundamentally transformed” the political landscape by his tyrannical determination to either get his way exactly the way he wants it or do what he wants through executive order without bothering to deal with the inconveniences of the House and Senate or the Constitution. And Reagan’s way of doing things won’t work with that level of fascist hate for everything our republic stands for that the Democrat Party has degenerated into since Reagan left office.

Rising levels of illegal immigration [led to] the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA). It provided amnesty for 3 million illegal immigrants, in return for increased border security and penalties for companies “knowingly” hiring illegal immigrants.

Democrats dishonestly proved to be liars who refused to make good on either one of those two conditions. They proved that they are utterly illegitimate negotiating partners. And they have been dishonest negotiating partners ever since.

Even Reagan can’t be “even Reagan” when he could literally trust the pathologically dishonest Soviet Union more than he could trust the Democrat Party.

Again, this is just another example of “even Reagan,” so if Republicans oppose Obama doing what he did, it’s only because they’re “extremist.” Because you see, it’s only fascist when Republicans evolve, at least it is if you’ve got enough legions of demons screaming in your insane brain.

To hold one party to a standard that old even as your own party has swung wildly and massively to the left is quite literally clinically insane both in terms of schizophrenic (by believing “facts” that are blatantly false) and sociopathic (by manifesting profound deceit and insincerity and an appalling absence of remorse or shame).

I am so sick of these sneering pseudo-intellectual HYPOCRITES creating “facts” by the despicable manipulation of rhetoric otherwise known as “political correctness.”

Liberal Hollywood tycoon Quentin Tarantino appeared on liberal MSNBC and doubled-down after calling police murders. He said (“whined” being a more accurate term):

That’s the way they attack me … for standing up for the rights of unarmed citizens who have been killed by the police.

They want to demonize me. They want to slander me and imply that I said things I didn’t say. And the reason is because they want me to shut up and they want to make sure that no other people like me, prominent citizens, will stand up for that side.

First of all, you turd, WHY ARE THE CITIZENS UNARMED AGAIN??? Oh, that’s right; because of liberals like YOU dedicated to denying us our 2nd Amendment freedom in spite of the fact that basically every single movie you ever made glorified gun violence – because, yeah, to be a damn liberal is to be a damn hypocrite. And second, what about the left trying to destroy Donald Trump for pointing out the fact that “unarmed citizens” are rather routinely getting MURDERED by illegal immigrants that this administration refuses to deal with? What about the far MORE fascist tactics that the left routinely uses to demonize any debate???

You can’t reason with or argue with a hypocrite. Democrats constantly shift in their double-standards. As I believe I’ve amply demonstrated above, the goal posts move on every single play with them while they demonize us for not PERFECTLY holding to the ideals of a man from three decades ago.

I’ve pointed this out before: there is NOTHING more dangerous than the right to vote when a people becomes sufficiently depraved. Democrats tell us that we should round-file the 2nd-Amendment-guaranteed right of the people to keep and bear arms even as they tell us that ANY ATTEMPT WHATSOEVER to prevent criminals and illegal immigrants and dead people from voting is “unconstitutional.”

If you put a gun in the hands of a wicked fool, whatever he does with that gun, he will pay the consequences for his foolishness. At least, if decent people are allowed to also keep and bear arms so they can put an end to that wicked fool. But let a wicked fool vote, and he can do so over and over again with impunity and never be held accountable.

In Greece – rather obviously a nation filled with wicked fools – we just saw the results of a vote. It’s kind of interesting. In the Lost Angeles Slimes we have the following account. Allow me to post what I believe is the true gist by selecting a few passages and discussing that. At the very bottom of the article I will have the entire LA Times article available:

In a surprising 61% to 39% result, Greeks said “no” in a referendum on a rescue package that would have kept their debt-ridden country afloat but subjected it to additional austerity measures.

The landslide delivered a sharp rebuke to European Union leaders who had warned that the plebiscite was, in effect, a vote on whether Greece wanted to remain a member of the Eurozone, the group of 19 nations that share the euro currency.

[…]

Jubilant crowds of “no” voters thronged Athens’ main square into the early hours of Monday to celebrate what they said was a chance for Greece to reassert itself and achieve a better deal from creditors. Motorists honked their horns, and triumphant chants of “Oxi! Oxi! Oxi!” — “No! No! No!” in Greek — rose in the balmy Mediterranean air.

But there were already signs of a backlash from angry European officials that could make any new bailout agreement even more difficult. If a deal is not struck quickly, Athens could find itself broke, forcing it to default on its debts and triggering a slide out of the Eurozone.

The left-wing government of Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras, which campaigned for a “no” victory, had “demolished the last bridge on which Europe and Greece could approach a compromise,” Sigmar Gabriel, the German economy minister, told the Tagesspiegel newspaper.

Jeroen Dijsselbloem, the leader of the Eurozone’s finance ministers, described the poll result as “very regrettable for the future of Greece. For recovery of the Greek economy, difficult measures and reforms are inevitable.”

[…]

Tsipras also said the referendum result had given him a mandate to press international lenders — mostly other Eurozone countries — for a “sustainable” bailout package for the Greek government that would address its staggering debt load and free the country “from the vicious cycle of austerity.”

The Greek economy has contracted by a breathtaking 25% since Athens began accepting emergency loans in exchange for brutal spending cuts in 2010. Tsipras’ radical-left Syriza party swept to power in January on an aggressive anti-austerity platform, setting up the current standoff with Greece’s creditors.

He said Athens was prepared to return to the negotiating table immediately. But with relations at an all-time low, it was unclear whether any of Greece’s European partners would show up and, even if so, whether an agreement could be hashed out before the Greek government runs out of money.

A major debt to the European Central Bank falls due July 20. If Athens fails to pay — as it already did with a loan from the International Monetary Fund last week — and bank coffers are empty, Greece could be forced to introduce a parallel currency and eventually quit the Eurozone.

[…]

Before the ballots were cast, a parade of European leaders, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Hollande, said they would interpret a win for the “no” side as an expression of Greece’s desire to quit using the euro.

But Tsipras insisted that the vote “did not answer the question ‘in or out of the euro.’ That question must be removed definitively from the discussion.”

Polls consistently show that an overwhelming majority of Greeks want their country to remain in the Eurozone and, by extension, the 28-nation European Union.

Let’s understand some basic facts: Greece owes – and promised to repay when it borrowed – $270 BILLION. To be extravagantly wasted on a tiny nation of 10,775,557 people. That massive government borrowing allowed Greek government to provide benefits that far and vastly exceeded the country’s ability to pay for its largesse. And as Margaret Thatcher once famously put it, “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” It’s like that saying, “Your mouth is writing checks that your ass can’t cash.” Greek socialists, like ALL socialists EVERYWHERE (especially here in the U.S.), want to live high on the hog and force somebody else to keep paying the tab. And so when the check comes due for that fancy meal in the high price resort, they angrily refuse to pay the tab they racked up.

The European Union is saying, “You’ve got to pay for this.” And the Greek socialist liberal progressives are like, “oh, hell no.” And a major problem now is that if Greece can weasel out of its debt with some stupid vote, then why can’t the OTHER P.I.G.S.? Why can’t Portugal weasel out of its debt that they compiled with the same insanely wicked socialism Obama and the Democrat Party preach here? Why can’t Ireland weasel out of its debt? Why can’t Spain say bye-bye to its debt payments? If the EU allows Greece out of its debt, the entire system will necessarily massively collapse.

These are simply facts. And facts ought to matter. The European Union simply cannot possibly allow Greece to do what Greece insists on doing without basically cutting the throats of every single person in every single member-state of the European Union that would go broke paying for Greece’s AND therefore Portugal’s AND therefore Ireland’s AND therefore Spain’s massive self-inflicted debt addiction. Which again is no different from the debt-addiction of Barack Hussein Obama and every single member of the just-as-socialist Democrat Party machine.

But liberal progressives, and let’s just call them what the hell they are – socialists – are pathologically immune to facts or reality or consequences.

Tsipras dismissed harsh criticism from other European countries on his decision.

“The referendum will take place as scheduled, next Sunday, whether our partners want it or not,” he said.

Allowing this to go to the people was an act of insanity and demagoguery, not an act of leadership. But demagogic delusion with a complete abandonment of true moral leadership is the heart and soul of leftism.

So you have the leftist Greek prime minister just flat-out flagrantly campaigning on a completely altered state of reality. You have this leftist turd Alexis Tsipras – or as I prefer to call him, the Greek Obama – making the most insane promises in the history of the world. And like the American Obama, the Greek Obama is leading his nation and his people straight to a very painful hell.

Just like the United States is headed straight to a very painful hell.

When Obama deceitfully campaigned for president, he told a lot of the same kind of sick lies and made the same sort of delusional fool promises.

Obama promised a “reset in relations” with Russia. He said a weak America that would not pose a threat to Russia would be the foundation for this reset, and that Russia would obviously respond to the fact that America was no longer any kind of a threat to Russia with love and a determination to disarm and become weak in response. He said the same thing in relationship to Iran and that nation’s steadfast determination to possess nuclear weapons with the ballistic missile capability to deliver those missiles at both the little satan Israel and the great satan America. He said the same thing in relationship to the “war on terror” which he renamed “the overseas contingency operation” to broadcast how minimal it would be under his regime. He promised us that the only reason our enemies hated us was because we were too strong and too dominant and pushed our weight around too much.

History has already proven what an abject fool Obama was in every sense of the word in terms of his foreign policy.

In the same way, on the domestic front, Obama made all kinds of fool promises about his giganotosaurus-government stimulus package. Obama demanded – and got – a $3.27 TRILLION stimulus that he promised would fire up the engine of American growth. Over and over and over again, Obama promised his stimulus would create “shovel-ready jobs.” History proves that it in actual fact did the precise opposite. Ultimately Obama actually admitted that:

Obama’s promise to pay back the $3.3 trillion he demagogued America into putting on its credit card bill is as good as Greece’s promise to pay that $270 billion they wanted but just didn’t want to actually pay back.

Greece’s $270 billion of other people’s money worked just as well for them as Obama’s $3.3 trillion in other people’s money worked for us. It didn’t.

And more billion-dollar deals are in the works as health insurers, hospitals and drug companies bulk up in size so they can seize on government spending in Obamacare exchanges, state Medicaid programs and Medicare Advantage for the baby boomers.

Riding high on Wall Street and flush with cash, big health insurers in particular have been on the prowl for deals. Atop the shopping list are companies that boost their government business.

“The Affordable Care Act is really driving this merger mania,” said Gerald Kominski, director of the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research. “There are billions of dollars pouring into the system, and it’s money to buy insurance.”

The resounding rejection of an international bailout deal by voters in Greece raised fears Sunday of the collapse of the country’s banking system, a catastrophic government default, an eventual exit from the euro and potential social unrest.

In a surprising 61% to 39% result, Greeks said “no” in a referendum on a rescue package that would have kept their debt-ridden country afloat but subjected it to additional austerity measures.

The landslide delivered a sharp rebuke to European Union leaders who had warned that the plebiscite was, in effect, a vote on whether Greece wanted to remain a member of the Eurozone, the group of 19 nations that share the euro currency.

The EU is now confronted with one of the gravest challenges to its mission of “ever closer union” between member states.

Jubilant crowds of “no” voters thronged Athens’ main square into the early hours of Monday to celebrate what they said was a chance for Greece to reassert itself and achieve a better deal from creditors. Motorists honked their horns, and triumphant chants of “Oxi! Oxi! Oxi!” — “No! No! No!” in Greek — rose in the balmy Mediterranean air.

But there were already signs of a backlash from angry European officials that could make any new bailout agreement even more difficult. If a deal is not struck quickly, Athens could find itself broke, forcing it to default on its debts and triggering a slide out of the Eurozone.

The left-wing government of Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras, which campaigned for a “no” victory, had “demolished the last bridge on which Europe and Greece could approach a compromise,” Sigmar Gabriel, the German economy minister, told the Tagesspiegel newspaper.

Jeroen Dijsselbloem, the leader of the Eurozone’s finance ministers, described the poll result as “very regrettable for the future of Greece. For recovery of the Greek economy, difficult measures and reforms are inevitable.”

An emergency summit of Eurozone leaders is to be held Tuesday.

More urgently, officials at the European Central Bank are to meet Monday to review the emergency aid that has propped up Greece’s nearly depleted financial system for the last few months.

If the European Central Bank decides to cut off that lifeline or make it costlier, Greek banks are likely to run out of cash within days. Business would grind to a halt, shops could run short of basic supplies and increasingly agitated residents could find it hard to buy fuel and medicine.

Greek banks have been closed since June 29 on order of the government, and customers limited to about $67 a day in ATM withdrawals. Officials insist that the banks will reopen Tuesday, but analysts doubt this can happen unless the European Central Bank maintains or increases its assistance.

“Our immediate priority is the rapid restoration of the functioning of our banking system and the restoration of our economic stability,” Tsipras said in a nationally televised address Sunday night. “I am certain that the ECB fully understands not only the general economic situation but also the humanitarian dimension which the crisis has taken in the country.”

Tsipras also said the referendum result had given him a mandate to press international lenders — mostly other Eurozone countries — for a “sustainable” bailout package for the Greek government that would address its staggering debt load and free the country “from the vicious cycle of austerity.”

The Greek economy has contracted by a breathtaking 25% since Athens began accepting emergency loans in exchange for brutal spending cuts in 2010. Tsipras’ radical-left Syriza party swept to power in January on an aggressive anti-austerity platform, setting up the current standoff with Greece’s creditors.

He said Athens was prepared to return to the negotiating table immediately. But with relations at an all-time low, it was unclear whether any of Greece’s European partners would show up and, even if so, whether an agreement could be hashed out before the Greek government runs out of money.

A major debt to the European Central Bank falls due July 20. If Athens fails to pay — as it already did with a loan from the International Monetary Fund last week — and bank coffers are empty, Greece could be forced to introduce a parallel currency and eventually quit the Eurozone.

Financial analysts say that this is not a threat in the next few days, but warn that the probability of a “Grexit” down the line has increased considerably because of Sunday’s vote.

Before the ballots were cast, a parade of European leaders, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Hollande, said they would interpret a win for the “no” side as an expression of Greece’s desire to quit using the euro.

But Tsipras insisted that the vote “did not answer the question ‘in or out of the euro.’ That question must be removed definitively from the discussion.”

Polls consistently show that an overwhelming majority of Greeks want their country to remain in the Eurozone and, by extension, the 28-nation European Union.

Merkel and other European leaders must now ponder whether to let Greece go bust and drop out of the Eurozone or whether such a course would inflict irreparable damage to the credibility of the euro and to the project of greater European unity. The Greek debt crisis is the severest test the euro has faced since it was introduced more than a decade ago.

To try to entice his Eurozone partners back to the bargaining table, Tsipras is apparently considering shuffling his negotiating team to include a broader spectrum of members. Several European officials have said openly that they no longer trust Tsipras or his Syriza party; a Greek delegation with some members drawn from other parties could be more palatable.

“That will show that Greece does not want a conflict,” said political commentator George Papageorgiou. “If there is a consensual approach from the Greek part, that could facilitate a consensual approach from the other part.”

Dijsselbloem, the Eurozone finance ministers’ chief, said the first move was Athens’. “We will now wait for the initiatives of the Greek authorities,” he said.

The size of the victory for the “no” campaign came as a surprise both inside and outside Greece after a flurry of opinion polls showed voters to be split down the middle. Bitter disagreement over the significance and possible effect of the plebiscite cleaved living rooms and workplaces across the country.

Just over 62% of the country’s 9.9 million voters cast a ballot, easily surpassing the mandatory threshold of 40% for a referendum to be considered valid.

Surveys suggested that young people voted “no” in droves. Many agreed with Tsipras’ contention that the bailout proposals on offer from Greece’s lenders demanded too much austerity on top of years of brutal spending cuts and would hit the poor and elderly disproportionately hard.

“These measures would worsen the situation,” said teacher Paula Andriotaki, 33, after casting her vote in a local school on a bright and warm afternoon. “We try to see light, but we get worse and worse.”

“Yes” supporters had urged Greeks to join them in order to guarantee Athens’ continued place in the Eurozone. They said that membership in the wider European Union could also be at risk and that Greece could not afford to be isolated.

A 40-year-old man named Giorgos, who declined to give his surname, blamed Tsipras for passing the buck.

“I would have preferred the referendum not to have happened,” he said. “I believe it is a political alibi. We are being asked to take a decision that should have been taken by someone else.”

The ballot paper was the subject of some criticism, because the question it asked was wordy and couched in jargon and the check box for “no” was above that for “yes.”

Moreover, the bailout deal referred to was technically moot. The offer from Greece’s creditors expired Tuesday night, after talks with Athens collapsed over Tsipras’ surprise decision to call a referendum. Creditors say that negotiations on a new agreement must start from scratch.

Because of the convoluted ballot question, and the conflicting claims of whether the real issue at stake was the future of Greece as a member of the Eurozone, many Greeks complained of confusion over just what was being asked of them.

“I don’t know what result I would like to see,” said a 19-year-old voter named Dimitris, who was still undecided as he prepared to enter a voting booth. “It would be a disaster to leave the euro, but it would also be disastrous to accept more austerity measures. ‘Yes’ is a bad choice, but ‘no’ is also suicidal.”

Sunday’s referendum was Greece’s first in 41 years. In 1974, Greeks were asked to decide whether their country should retain its monarchy.

The answer then: also a resounding “no.”

Special correspondent Pavlos Zafiropoulos contributed to this report.

One of the things that the left loves to do is hang all the consequences of “austerity” on the heads of conservatives. On their view, the crisis has NOTHING to do with the $270 billion they borrowed in Greece and now refuse to repay; it’s because of “austerity” that the economy has collapsed.

Every leftist is a morally sick individual who essentially whines, “I want a mansion and a yacht, and if you don’t give them to me, it’s your fault I’m poor.”

And then there are the lies from the liars: at the heart of the “austerity” that the European Union is imposing on Greece is the demand for Greece to raise taxes. HOW MANY CONSERVATIVES DO YOU HEAR CALLING FOR TAX HIKES???? This has NOTHING to do with conservatives, either the sick and diseased and insane borrowing or the attempts of the lenders to get their fool money back. Rather, this is socialists European Union liberals trying to get their money back from socialist Greek liberals who are crazier than they are.

So from now on, any fool who blames Republicans or conservatives for failed “austerity” seriously needs to get a punch in the mouth.

What we are seeing in Greece is nothing more than the abject failure of socialism to deal with the crisis created by socialism. Which is of course hardly surprising to anyone who is capable of thinking.

During the 8 years of the George W. Bush Presidency the lowest annual unemployment rate was 4.61% in 2007, the highest annual unemployment rate was 5.76% in 2008. During Bush’s 8 years as President the average unemployment rate was 5.27%

Which is another way of saying that “Democrat” and “disgusting, dishonest, pathological hypocrite” may not rhyme, but they sure mean the same thing.

(CNSNews.com) – A record 93,626,000 Americans 16 or older did not participate in the nation’s labor force in June, as the labor force participation rate dropped to 62.6 percent, a 38-year low, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

In June, according to BLS, the nation’s civilian noninstitutional population, consisting of all people 16 or older who were not in the military or an institution, hit 250,663,000. Of those, 157,037,000 participated in the labor force by either holding a job or actively seeking one.

The 157,037,000 who participated in the labor force equaled only 62.6 percent of the 250,663,000 civilian noninstitutional population, the lowest labor force participation rate seen in 38 years. It hasn’t been this low since October 1977 when the participation rate was 62.4 percent.

Another 93,626,000 did not participate in the labor force. These Americans did not have a job and were not actively trying to find one.

Of the 157,037,000 who did participate in the labor force, 148,739,000 had a job, and 8,299,000 did not have a job were actively seeking one—making them the nation’s unemployed.

The 8,299,000 job seekers were 5.3 percent of the 157,037,000 actively participating in the labor force during the month. Thus, the unemployment rate was 5.3 percent which dropped from the 5.5 percent unemployment seen in May.

The number of employed Americans dropped from 148,795,000 in May to 148,739,000 in June, a decline of 56,000. The number of unemployed Americans also dropped over the month from 8,674,000 in May to 8,299,000 in June, a decline of 375,000.

I like this article because it’s one of the first I’ve seen that actually gives you a notion of the statistical shenanigan that our “unemployment rate” truly is. Nearly 94 million working-age people are unemployed, but our unemployment rate only considers 8 million of them. I guess the other 86 million are silver-spoon trust-fund kids lounging around their mansions sipping champagne and dining on the finest caviar. Either that or you’re an “abject imbecile” – another synonym for “Democrat” to go alongside “disgusting, dishonest, pathological hypocrite.”

As I’ve been trying to point out over and over again, Obama has been to the labor participation rate what stage 5 lung and bronchus cancer is to quality of life. Obama has been absolutely devastating and toxic to American jobs. And like the stage 5 lung and bronchus cancer sufferer, the patient that is the American economy is actually getting weaker and weaker measured in terms of the ALL-IMPORTANT measure of how many working-age Americans actually have a damn JOB. The rate of Americans with a damn JOB – which for the factual record are LOWER PAYING JOBS with FEWER HOURS under Obama – has been sinking and sinking and sinking. Thanks to the Obama presidency and the stage five cancer that is the Democrat Party, fewer and fewer Americans are working, while more and more of those fewer and fewer are working for less and cannot get decent full-time jobs.

And what is the Democrat strategy? Well, further disincentivize employers by putting more and more burdens and obstacles on them. You know, like treating that stage five lung and bronchus cancer patient with concentrated dosages of asbestos and then blaming the fact that the patient keeps getting sicker on Republicans.

I’ve listened to the smartest, smarmiest Democrats trying to explain why the labor participation rate is so shockingly low under Obama. Here’s one example:

There are a few reasons why the LFPR has declined. First, the country is aging as baby boomers retire. An older country means a lower percent of the population will be in the labor force. This is a structural reason for the LFPR’s recent decline—it was going to happen regardless of the underlying economic conditions. That’s why many economists forecasted that the rate would slowly fall over time.

Here’s the problem, smart, smarmy Democrat: you’re exactly what the Bible foretold when it said, “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools…” Consider the FACTS that blow the Democrat theory right out of the water akin to the way that the reality of Japanese torpedoes blew up the U.S.S. Arizona in Pearl Harbor when Democrats also didn’t have a freaking clue what the hell was going on:

Last week, though, a study by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis took on the notion that the drop is all about demographics and not a sign that the labor market is sicker than we think. The study looked at the labor force participation rate not just in the U.S. but in eight major developed countries, including Sweden, Japan, Canada, Germany, France, Spain, and the United Kingdom. Nearly all of those countries are facing the same demographic trends as the U.S. And Japan is currently dealing with an even more severe case of aging population. And yet, out of the eight nations, the U.S. is the only one where the participation in the labor force is declining.

So much for the Democrat theory that, well, shoot, you can’t blame Obama for the collapse in labor participation. It was just selfish Republican white people retiring. Because all the OTHER developed nations have the same demographic issues as America does -with Japan’s aging population FAR WORSE. And yet somehow we’re doing worse than ANY of them in labor participation.

And for another factoid, it is striking that Democrats are trying to point at an aging demographic to explain our dismal labor participation rate: BECAUSE THEY HAVE MURDERED SIXTY MILLION INNOCENT BABIES IN THEIR GOD DAMN ABORTION MILLS SINCE 1973 AND WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK THAT WOULD DO TO THE AVERAGE DAMN AGE OF OUR POPULATION??? It’s akin to the classic example of the child who murdered both his parents and then asked for mercy from the court on the grounds that he’s an orphan. And so we can now document that that proverbial godawful kid is a DEMOCRAT through and through.

If you are a DEMOCRAT – which stands for DEMOn-possessed bureauCRAT – you are a liar without shame, honor, decency, virtue, or integrity of any kind whatsoever. And one of the reasons you so worship government is that your love of lies most flourishes because the best way to lie of ALL is with STATISTICS.

The article includes a rather striking graph that shows America DEAD LAST among the top developed nations but I keep looking at it:

What I particularly noticed as I stared in horror at this graph of the demise of my country was the fact that Bush was actually bringing the baby up between 2005 and the middle part of 2008. I checked the Department of Labor chart and the actual numbers back up the graph: the labor participation rate was actually going UP. Clinton left office just before a TERRIBLE RECESSION PLUS THE DOUBLE-WHAMMY OF THE 9/11 ATTACK struck America as a result of Clinton’s leaving America weak and blind in the face of our enemies. That recession was called the DotCom Bubble collapse.

The Market Capitalization of the Dow Jones Wilshire 5000 Full Cap was $16.7 Trillion as of April 30, 2008. Comparatively, the market cap at the end of Q1 in 2000 was approximately $16 trillion (only slightly smaller). However, between 2000 Q1 and Q1 2003 the index lost a stunning 43% of its valuation. In other words, $7.1 Trillion of wealth was lost. This stunning number includes the completeness of the crash.

Who was still president in the first quarter of the fiscal year 2000 when this disaster began to blow up? It was the guy who was still president on January 20, 2001 when George Bush assumed – and dare I say “inherited” – the office of the president.

Obviously, there was a problem. The first shots through this bubble came from the companies themselves: many reported huge losses and some folded outright within months of their offering. Siliconaires were moving out of $4 million estates and back to the room above their parents’ garage. In the year 1999, there were 457 IPOs, most of which were internet and technology related. Of those 457 IPOs, 117 doubled in price on the first day of trading. In 2001 the number of IPOs dwindled to 76, and none of them doubled on the first day of trading.

I want to know why Bush is still responsible for Obama’s entire economic mess four years later when Bill Clinton was never held responsible for so much as one second of Bush’s mess. I want to understand why Democrats are lying, dishonest, hypocrite slime whose only talent is bankrupting America and then demagoguing Republicans for what they did.

You find out that the Dotcom bubble began to grow huge in 1995 and virtually all of Clinton’s economic “success” that didn’t have to do with the policies of the Republican House and the Republican Senate that swept into power in 1995 as a result of the historic 1994 asskicking as a result of Clinton’s and the Democrat Party’s abject failure had to do with the inflation of that damn bubble. Clinton fanned the flames of that Dotcom bubble because he knew that it would explode on the next president’s watch and that Democrats were far too personally and pathologically dishonest to ever blame HIM for it.

I’ve been pointing this out over and over again recently: if you are a Democrat, you are a LIAR at home with LIES. You are a BAD PERSON. You have one middle finger stuck up in the air at the God of the Bible you rabidly despise and the other middle finger shoved up your rectum because you are a DEPRAVED PERVERT.

We are ripe for an attack by emboldened enemies. And no nation has EVER deserved to be attacked more than this wretched Obamanation.

Another thing I noticed as I look at the above graph is that the liberal explanation that the labor participation rate was highest under Bill Clinton fails to consider a key fact (not including the fact that it was actually much higher under both Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush than it ever was under Bill Clinton): I notice that the labor participation rate PLUNGED under Bill Clinton for the first years of his presidency when he was playing the role of liberal president with a Democrat Congress. But then in 1994 Clinton had his ass handed to him by the American people who put REPUBLICANS in charge of both the House and the Senate. And Bill Clinton ultimately uttered the famous words, “The era of big government is OVER.” And it was under the REPUBLICAN policies OF reducing the giant jackboot of federal government power that the economy managed something of a rebound. At least until the DotCom bubble and the 9/11 attack both of which Bill Clinton was solely responsible for, which forced George Bush to build it up all over again.

What did Democrats do with the mainstream media’s culpability? They falsely dropped the crisis at the feet of “greedy” Wall Street. But while examples of Wall Street greed abound, the liberal intelligentsia deliberately overlooked the central and preceding role of Democrat-dominated Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Here’s how the mess actually happened:

The New York Times acknowledged that Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac “buy mortgages from lenders and repackage them as securities or hold them in their own portfolios.”

Lenders also have opened the door wider to minorities because of new initiatives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–the giant federally chartered corporations that play critical, if obscure, roles in the home finance system. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy mortgages from lenders and bundle them into securities; that provides lenders the funds to lend more. . . .

In a nutshell, Fannie and Freddie, in their role as Government Sponsored Enterprises, bought tens of millions of mortgages, and then repackaged them into huge mortgage-backed securities that giant private entities such as Bear Stearns, AIG and Lehman Brothers purchased. What made these securities particularly attractive to the private banking entities was that these securities were essentially being sold – and had the backing – of the United States government. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, again, are Government Sponsored Enterprises.

The Role of the GSEs is to provide liquidity and stability to the U.S. housing and mortgage markets. Step 1 Banks lend money to Households to purchase and refinance home mortgages Step 2 The GSEs purchase these mortgage from the banks Step 3 GSEs bundle the mortgages into mortgage-backed securities Step 4 GSEs sell mortgage-backed and debt securities to domestic and international capital investors Step 5 Investors pay GSEs for purchase of debt and securities Step 6 GSEs return funds to banks to lend out again for the issuance of new mortgage loans.

Now, any intelligent observer should note a primary conflict that amounts to a fundamental hypocritical contradiction: the GSE’s role was to “provide stability,” and yet at the same time they were taking on “significantly more risk” in the final year of the Clinton presidency. What’s wrong with this picture?

The GSEs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were designed to bundle up the mortgages into mortgage backed securities and then sell them to the private market.

Fannie Mae is exempt from SEC [Securities and Exchange Commission] regulation. Which screams why Bush wanted to regulate them. This allowed Fannie Mae to bundle up mortgages, which were then rated AAA with no requirement to make clear what is in the bundle. Which screams why Bush wanted to regulate them.

This is what allowed the toxic instruments that have been sold across the world to proliferate. And then to explode. It also created a situation where money institutions did not know and could not find out whether potential inter-bank business partners were holding these “boiled babies on their books, complete with a golden stamp on the wrapping,” rather than safe instruments. This then inclined banks to a natural caution, to be wary of lending good money to other banks against these ‘assets’. And thus banks refused to lend to one another.

And it was Democrats, not Bush, and not Republicans, who were all over this disaster that destroyed our economy in 2008.

We were led by a pathologically dishonest media to believe that Republicans had created this mess, when it fact it had been Democrats. And so we gave the very fools who destroyed our economy total power.

I’ve got to end somewhere, although I can literally go on all day. Because the actual facts prove that Democrats are basically the cause of everything that is evil or ruinous in America. So let me just end with something that George Will said a few weeks ago (when the labor participation rate merely matched the horror of 1978 rather than beat it for being even WORSE as it just did):

CHRIS WALLACE, FOX NEWS SUNDAY: We could continue this conversation and I’m sure we will, but let’s turn to the economy and some really disappointing numbers on the economy this week. Here they are. Only 126,000 jobs were added in March. That’s the weakest hiring in 15 months. Labor force participation dropped to 62.7 percent, matching the lowest since 1978. And the Federal Reserve Bank in Atlanta estimates first quarter growth at zero, zero percent, flat. George, what’s going on here?

GEORGE WILL, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Well, for the second year in a row they’ve blamed poor quarterly growth on insufficient global warming, that is on winter, on an unusually cold winter. Let your mind go back to November last year. There was job creation of 321,000 jobs and the administration said this is a miraculous achievement and a harbinger of things to come. It wasn’t a harbinger and it wasn’t miraculous. During the Reagan recovery there were 23 months of job creation over 300,000. Reagan had a month of job creation of 1 million and this was at a time when there were 75 million fewer Americans. Now, never mind zero growth. We are now being told really that two percent growth may be the new normal. If so, that’s a disaster because every day, today, yesterday, tomorrow, every day between now and 2030, 10,000 more baby boomers become eligible for Social Security and Medicare. If we have two percent growth, the crisis of the welfare state, the crisis of the private sector being able to throw off the revenues, to pay the bills for the promises we’ve made to ourselves becomes impossible.

WALLACE: Just tell again that the labor force participation stat that you have, if it were what it was at the beginning of the Obama administration.

WILL: If the workforce participation rate today were as high as it was on the day Barack Obama was inaugurated, the unemployment rate in this country would be 9.7 percent, we wouldn’t be complaining about the bad recovery because we wouldn’t call it a recovery.

It takes the Holy Bible to explain the sheer idiocy that is a Democrat voter:

Woe to those who call evil good and good evil; who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness, who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. — Isaiah 5:20

I was a little surprised when I saw even the Los Angeles Times editorial condemn the rank hypocrisy of labor unions:

Editorial L.A. labor leaders’ hypocrisy on minimum wage hike
By The Times Editorial Board
▼ Los Angeles labor leaders fought for a minimum wage hike; now they want to be exempt from it
▼ L.A. County Federation of Labor is being hypocritical in its stance on raising the minimum wage
May 29, 2015, 5:00 AM

No, employers with a unionized workforce should not be allowed to pay less than Los Angeles’ proposed minimum wage. It’s stunning that after leading the fight for a $15 citywide minimum wage and vehemently opposing efforts to exempt restaurant workers, nonprofits and small businesses from the full wage hike, the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor is now lobbying for an exemption for employers with union contracts. That’s right — labor leaders are advocating that an employer should have the right to pay union members less than the minimum wage.

This is hypocrisy at its worst, and it plays into the cynical view that the federation is more interested in unionizing companies and boosting its rolls of dues-paying members than in helping poor workers. Such an exemption would create an incentive for companies to allow unions in — but rather than helping workers, it would undermine the purpose of the minimum wage ordinance, which is to set a new, higher pay floor in order to help lift the greatest number of low-wage Angelenos out of poverty.

Because to be a Democrat is to be a fascist who says, “What is good for me to force on thee should not apply to me.”

And of course there has never been in all of human history a politician who exemplified that spirit of elitist liberal entitlement than Hillary Clinton. Which is why hypocrite Democrats love her so much.

Here’s another one: Same newspaper, same day, revealing how liberals are HYPOCRITES without shame, without honor, without virtue, without decency, without integrity. As you read the following LA Times article listen to my voice in your head screaming, “JUST HOW THE HELL IS IT THAT THESE LIBERAL DEMOCRAT HOLLYWOOD COCKROACHES WHO DEMAND HIGHER TAXES ON EVERYBODY ELSE ARE CHASING TAX BREAKS RIGHT OUT OF THE DAMN STATE???

Other media companies have contributed more significantly to Mr. Obama, including Time Warner, owner of CNN and the magazine publishing house Time Inc. The company, which is based in New York and also owns Warner Brothers and HBO, has contributed $191,834 to Mr. Obama in the 2012 election cycle, compared with $10,750 to Mr. Romney

Which is to say, having done the math, that Warner Bros. is 1,692.84 percent more Obama-liberal than it is Romney-Republican. And virtually every single media outlet today is a whore of liberal ideology, pumping their propaganda into the mindless heads of pathologically depraved cows who gobble it up like pigs shoving their faces into their feeding trough. I mean, when I was a child, I used to spit into fish ponds and watch in amazement as the goldfish swarmed to be the first to dine on my loogie. But only now do I realize that I was receiving an object lesson in how liberals teach and how liberals learn.

Liberals are Nazis who say, “What is good for me to force on thee does not apply to me.

Now watch how real liberals act when it’s THEIR money rather than somebody else’s money:

Big movies in short supply in California, FilmL.A. says
By Richard Verrier
▼ Only two big-budget movies released in 2014 were filmed in California
▼ Few big movies have filmed in California because they were excluded from the state’s financial incentives
May 28, 2015, 5:59 PM

The big movie hitting theaters this weekend is “San Andreas,” depicting the destruction of California from a massive earthquake.

The Warner Bros. movie was filmed mainly in Australia, of course.

Such is the reality that California faces in an industry where tax credits and other financial inducements increasingly drive where movies are filmed around the world.

Fresh evidence of that emerged Thursday in a feature film study from FilmL.A. Inc., the nonprofit group that handles film permits for the city and county.

The second annual report found that only 22 of 106 films released by the major studios in 2014 were actually filmed in California. The rest of the movies were shot in New York, Britain, Canada, Georgia, Louisiana, Australia and a dozen other states and countries.

Only two films with budgets above $100 million were filmed primarily in California: Marvel’s “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” and Paramount’s “Interstellar.” Even those films spent considerable time and money in other locations that offer tax credits and rebates to lure filmmakers.

The exodus of big movies from California has been happening for years. When local film production peaked in 1997, 64% of the top 25 movies at the box office were filmed in California, compared with 16% last year.

“We’ve waited so long to truly get involved in the competition that we’ve allowed some major production centers to be created around the world,” said Paul Audley, president of FilmL.A.

The report notes that several high-profile movies set in California have filmed elsewhere, including Warner Bros.’ “Godzilla,” which was shot mainly in Vancouver, Canada; 20th Century Fox’s “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes,” which was filmed in Louisiana; and Disney’s “Million Dollar Arm,” which was shot mainly in Georgia.

As for “San Andreas,” the movie filmed some scenes in Los Angeles and San Francisco but most of the two-month shoot took place at Village Roadshow’s Studio on the Gold Coast in Queensland, Australia.

The $110-million movie, from Warner Bros.’ New Line Cinema unit, received a portion of a $20-million film fund specifically designed to attract foreign productions.

Warner’s decision was not surprising.

Few big movies have filmed in California because they were excluded from the state’s financial incentives.

That’s about to change. To stop the exodus of production, state lawmakers last year approved an expansion of the film and TV tax credit program. The new program triples annual funding to $330 million a year and for the first time allows big budget films to apply for the incentives.

Studios will apply for feature film tax credits under the new program in July.

“The new program should result in us getting several of the large features back in California,” Audley said.

While the same Democrats who are giving tax credits to hypocrite liberal moviemakers impose sky-high taxes on all the other businesses and people they’re crushing and oppressing right out of the state.

If you are not truly and astonishingly STUPID, you understand that low taxes are the key to healthy businesses. The problem with these liberals isn’t that they’re dumb, it is that they are utterly depraved moral hypocrites who because they are the human equivalent of cockroaches are ONLY capable of caring about THEMSELVES and to hell with everybody else.

Now, elitist jet-setting liberals right out of The Who’s song “Eminence Front” DO understand that the overwhelming majority of Democrats are just rank-and-goose-stepping-Nazi-file STUPID as well as depraved. They are little more than dumb farm-animal-cattle who are so easily lied to and manipulated and duped and led by the nose by lies that it is beyond amazing. But yeah, stupid Democrat: “it’s an eminence front.” And “it’s a put on.” That’s what liberalism is, that’s what the Democrat Party represents: an eminence front, a bright-shining lie.

Let’s force ObamaCare. And exempt ourselves. Let’s force higher wages. And exempt ourselves. Let’s force higher taxes. And exempt ourselves. And anybody who thinks liberals give one flying DAMN about the poor are poor – in the sense of completely lacking in either rational or moral-capacity – deluded fools.

FBI agents arrested the officials meeting in Switzerland, as the head of the Justice Department described a conspiracy of bribery and corruption in the selection of World Cup host countries and sponsors.

The Clinton Foundation, already under fire for accepting multimillion-dollar contributions from nations including Saudi Arabia, disclosed only the range of the contribution — from $50,001 to $100,000.

Meanwhile, as we speak, on this very day’s headlines, even the New York Times is calling what the Clintons did “distasteful”:

To commemorate the 10th anniversary of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, Petra Nemcova, a Czech model who survived the disaster by clinging to a palm tree, decided to pull out all the stops for the annual fund-raiser of her school-building charity, the Happy Hearts Fund.

She booked Cipriani 42nd Street, which greeted guests with Bellini cocktails on silver trays. She flew in Sheryl Crow with her band and crew for a 20-minute set. She special-ordered heart-shaped floral centerpieces, heart-shaped chocolate parfaits, heart-shaped tiramisù and, because orange is the charity’s color, an orange carpet rather than a red one. She imported a Swiss auctioneer and handed out orange rulers to serve as auction paddles, playfully threatening to use hers to spank the highest bidder for an Ibiza vacation.

The gala cost $363,413. But the real splurge? Bill Clinton.

The former president of the United States agreed to accept a lifetime achievement award at the June 2014 event after Ms. Nemcova offered a $500,000 contribution to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation. The donation, made late last year after the foundation sent the charity an invoice, amounted to almost a quarter of the evening’s net proceeds — enough to build 10 preschools in Indonesia.

Happy Hearts’ former executive director believes the transaction was a “quid pro quo,” which rerouted donations intended for a small charity with the concrete mission of rebuilding schools after natural disasters to a large foundation with a broader agenda and a budget 100 times bigger.

“The Clinton Foundation had rejected the Happy Hearts Fund invitation more than once, until there was a thinly veiled solicitation and then the offer of an honorarium,” said the former executive director, Sue Veres Royal, who held that position at the time of the gala and was dismissed a few weeks later amid conflicts over the gala and other issues.

Press officers for Ms. Nemcova and for the Clinton Foundation said on Thursday that the foundation had not solicited the donation and that the money would be used for projects in Haiti, as yet undetermined.

The Happy Hearts Fund and the Clinton Foundation “have a shared goal of providing meaningful help to Haiti,” the school charity’s spokeswoman said. “We believe that we can create the most impactful change by working together.”

Never publicly disclosed, the episode provides a window into the way the Clinton Foundation relies on the Clintons’ prestige to amass donors large and small, offering the prospect, as described in the foundation’s annual report, of lucrative global connections and participation in a worldwide mission to “unlock human potential” through “the power of creative collaboration.”

Similarly, Ms. Nemcova, like other celebrity philanthropists, uses her fame to promote her charity — which has financed more than 110 schools, mostly kindergartens — just as she uses Happy Hearts to position herself as a model-humanitarian.

“This is primarily a small but telling example of the way the Clintons operate,” said Doug White, who directs the master’s program in fund-raising management at Columbia University. “The model has responsibility; she paid a high price for a feel-good moment with Bill Clinton. But he was riding the back of this small charity for what? A half-million bucks? I find it — what would be the word? — distasteful.”

In her letter of invitation to Mr. Clinton, Ms. Nemcova, then chairwoman of her charity’s board, said she wanted to show her appreciation for his “inspirational leadership” after disasters.

“My gratitude to you is so strong that should you accept, we will schedule our event commemorating the 10th anniversary around your schedule,” she wrote, speaking of their shared dedication to the survivors of both the tsunami and the 2010 earthquake in Haiti.

When the tsunami struck in December 2004, Ms. Nemcova, who had been featured on the cover of the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue the previous year, was vacationing in Thailand with her boyfriend, a fashion photographer named Simon Atlee. They were swept from their beach cottage and separated in the turbulent waters; Mr. Atlee died.

Ms. Nemcova, her pelvis shattered, held fast to a tree for hours until she was rescued, listening impotently to the cries of children, she has said, which later motivated her to found her child-centric charity.

Happy Hearts rebuilt two schools in Thailand while Mr. Clinton was the United Nations’ envoy for tsunami relief and reconstruction. Most of the charity’s rebuilding has been in Indonesia after the earthquakes of 2006 and 2009.

After the 2010 earthquake in Haiti, Ms. Nemcova turned her attention to that small island nation, where both Mr. Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton, as secretary of state, played outsize roles in the earthquake relief effort and the more problem-filled reconstruction. The country had attracted other celebrity benefactors, too, notably the actor Sean Penn, an ex-boyfriend of Ms. Nemcova’s who had created his own relief organization and forged a relationship with Mr. Clinton.

In the fall of 2011, many players in Haiti’s rebuilding effort, including Ms. Nemcova, attended the Clinton Global Initiative’s membership meeting in Manhattan. Members, who must be invited, pay $20,000 in annual dues, largely for the yearly gatherings, where charity founders and entrepreneurs get to network with world leaders, corporate executives and wealthy donors.

Clinton Foundation Bills Small Charity for Big Donation

Six months after Bill Clinton accepted a lifetime achievement award at the Happy Hearts Fund gala in June 2014, the Clinton Foundation sent this invoice to the charity, run by the model Petra Nemcova. It sought to collect a $500,000 donation.

At the meeting, Ms. Nemcova signed a memorandum of understanding with the president of the Inter-American Development Bank to finance schools in Haiti. The development bank has also donated to the Clinton Foundation — just over $1 million — and it partnered with Mrs. Clinton’s State Department after the earthquake to create an industrial park in northern Haiti.

Almost four years after Happy Hearts and the development bank made their commitment, they have yet to complete a single school, partly because of problems finding suitable land. Five schools are under construction.

Happy Hearts collaborated more expeditiously in Haiti with the Digicel Foundation, whose founder, the Irish billionaire Denis O’Brien, is a multimillion-dollar supporter of the Clinton Foundation and whose parent telecommunications company benefited from grants from Mrs. Clinton’s State Department.

Digicel also made a commitment at the 2011 meeting to build schools; the commitment was a formality, though, as Digicel had already taken the lead in Haiti in that realm. It has built 150 schools there over the last seven years; Happy Heart has built seven, six of them joint or side-by-side ventures with Digicel.

One of those schools, operated by the Haitian group Prodev, was featured in the Clinton Foundation’s most recent annual report as “built through a Clinton Global Initiative Commitment to Action.” The Clinton Foundation’s sole direct contribution to the school was a grant for an Earth Day celebration and tree-planting activity.

In late 2011, Ms. Nemcova dedicated her charity’s annual fund-raiser to Haiti, awarding the lifetime achievement honor to Mr. Penn, whom the Haitian government had named an ambassador at large, and giving a speaking platform to Laurent Lamothe, Haiti’s foreign minister.

The next year, Ms. Nemcova, too, became an ambassador at large for Haiti. And by 2013, she was practically living there, having become romantically involved with Mr. Lamothe, by then prime minister. (Mr. Lamothe, no longer prime minister, is now a presidential candidate in Haiti, and the couple have split up.)

Through the years, Ms. Nemcova, 35, has blended her personal and philanthropic lives; her sister replaced Ms. Veres Royal as executive director of Happy Hearts. She has also mingled her celebrity and charity work, both in ways that benefited the charity and in ways that benefited her personally.

In 2011, when she appeared as a contestant on ABC’s “Dancing With the Stars,” her survival story and charity received ample, positive attention. She brought on Clinique and Chopard as sponsors of the charity, but also accepted personal fees to model their products.

“Ms. Nemcova has a long career as a model in fashion industry for 16 years and has longstanding relationships with many brands,” her charity’s spokeswoman said. “Happy Hearts Fund is grateful for Chopard’s and Clinique’s support.”

At the 2014 gala, Chopard, a Swiss jeweler that was dedicating partial proceeds from a heart-shaped bracelet to the charity, set up lighted showcases in the cocktail area, Ms. Veres Royal said.

“They were peddling exorbitant jewelry at a gala that was supposed to focus on children who have lost their belongings, homes, and often friends and family members,” she said. “It was inappropriate and tacky. Too many people at that event were looking after their own interests first.”

Happy Hearts Fund first asked Mr. Clinton to be its honoree in 2011. Trying again in 2013, Ms. Nemcova sent her first formal letter of invitation in July, asking Mr. Clinton to be the primary award recipient at a Happy Hearts gala on Nov. 4, 2013, celebrating Indonesia.

Mr. Clinton’s scheduler replied with a cordial rejection — “Regrettably, he is committed to another event out of town that same evening” — in an email copied to Frank Giustra, the Canadian mining financier who is one of the Clinton Foundation’s largest donors and also a supporter of Ms. Nemcova.

Haitians protested outside the Happy Hearts Fund gala, which Mr. Clinton attended after Ms. Nemcova pledged $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation. Her charity has worked with the Clinton Foundation on projects in Haiti. Credit Tony Savino/Corbis

Ms. Nemcova subsequently met with officers at the Clinton Foundation, Ms. Veres Royal said. Afterward, she said, “Petra called me and said we have to include an honorarium for him — that they don’t look at these things unless money is offered, and it has to be $500,000.”

The invitation letter was revised and sent again at the end of August. It moved the gala to 2014, offered to work around Mr. Clinton’s availability, dropped the focus on Indonesia and shifted it to Haiti, and proposed the donation.

“Understanding the need and commitment to ‘rebuilding better,’ Happy Hearts Fund would like to also share the proceeds of the event with the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, committing at least $500,000 in partnership on a joint educational project in Haiti, of your selection,” Ms. Nemcova wrote, ending with her customary signoff, “Lots of Love, Light and Laughter.”

When charities select an honoree for their fund-raising events, they generally expect that the award recipient will help them raise money by attracting new donors. But the Happy Hearts Fund raised less money at the gala featuring Mr. Clinton than it did at its previous one.

Further, it is extremely rare for honorees, or their foundations, to be paid from a gala’s proceeds, charity experts said — as it is for the proceeds to be diverted to a different cause.

And while the original invitation letter spoke of a joint educational project, the Clinton Foundation said Thursday that Happy Hearts had agreed that the money could be “split 50/50” between the foundation’s education programs and its economic development and agriculture programs in Haiti.

In the charity gala world, it is considered unacceptable to spend more than a third of gross proceeds on costs, and better to spend considerably less. If the donation to the Clinton Foundation were counted as a cost, Happy Hearts would have spent 34 percent of its announced $2.5 million in proceeds on its gala.

Its actual expenses — while they might seem extravagant to outsiders, with the total cost of the Cipriani facility alone at almost $300 a head — were in line with what other charities spend on such events.

In the end, the Happy Hearts Fund’s gala was a star-studded event, with celebrities including Naomi Watts and John Legend and the models Karlie Kloss and Coco Rocha in attendance. The Haitian president, Michel Martelly, a former musician who was Ms. Nemcova’s boyfriend’s boss at the time, was a second honoree, and he performed a couple of numbers with Wyclef Jean.

At the start of the evening, school bells rang and, as the master program dictated, “Petra dressed as schoolteacher” appeared, wearing glasses.

“Good evening, class,” said the message on the screen behind her. She later changed into a sheer red lace gown donated by the designer Naeem Khan, with diamond and ruby jewelry by Chopard.

A video by the Happy Hearts Fund framed the moment she presented the award to Mr. Clinton like this: “Ten years ago, two people were deeply impacted by the 2004 tsunami. They met this year again to inspire …”

“Petra did not have to devote 10 years of her life to building these schools,” Mr. Clinton told the crowd. “But what she has done is a symbol of what I think we all have to do.”

Countries and companies that donated to the Clinton Foundation or paid Bill Clinton heavy fees for speeches saw an increase in State Department activity while Hillary Clinton served as secretary of state.

The presidential candidate’s supporters have dismissed as conspiracy theories allegations that she and her husband traded political favors for contributions to their foundation or for lucrative speaking engagements.

A Washington Examiner analysis of Clinton Foundation donors suggests the State Department ramped up its diplomatic activity, foreign assistance and/or investment in countries that gave to the Clinton Foundation and hosted Bill Clinton for high-profile speeches.

For example, months after Bill Clinton delivered a speech in Riyadh for a price of $300,000, State Department funding for projects and activities in Saudi Arabia spiked.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has also donated between $10 million and $25 million to the Clinton Foundation, donor records show.

State Department funding for its diplomatic operations and projects in the country jumped from more than $18 million in 2011 to $67.75 million in 2012, the year after Bill Clinton delivered his speech at the Saudi Investment Authority, according to USASpending.gov.

Much of that appears to have gone toward the construction of new State Department buildings in the country.

The agency poured $177.9 million into building a new embassy in Norway in 2011 over the apparent objections of diplomatic officials in Oslo.

Norway’s government has donated between $10 million and $25 million to the Clinton Foundation.

A leaked diplomatic cable sent to Clinton in July 2009 shows plans for the embassy project, which predated Clinton’s tenure as secretary, had been pushed from 2011 to 2020 to free up funding for embassies in key countries.

“We understand the arguments for first building NEC’s [new embassy complexes] where terrorist threats are higher,” the cable said of the delayed embassy plans in Norway.

The cable mentions “Pat Kennedy,” the undersecretary for management and a close Clinton aide, among the State Department officials who had helped to further the project.

Kennedy’s name also surfaced in Benghazi-related emails published by the State Department last week.

Despite the misgivings by agency officials in 2009, the State Department awarded the contract for the Norwegian embassy to Walsh Construction Group on September 27, 2011. It was the construction company’s first overseas embassy project.

Norway teamed up with an arm of the Clinton Foundation in September 2012 for an ambitious health care project funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development, which is part of the State Department.

USAID, the Clinton Health Access Initiative, the Children’s Investment Fund, the U.K. and Sweden supported the development of a type of contraceptive produced by Bayer that was widely distributed in poor nations.

All but Sweden and USAID itself were Clinton Foundation donors.

“The US Agency for International Development (USAID) is proud to have funded the development of this life-saving product,” then-USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah said at the time.

The same year USAID announced its plan to purchase 27 million contraceptive devices from Bayer, which donated between $20,000 and $50,000 to the Clinton Foundation, the pharmaceutical company hired lobbyists with DLA Piper (itself a foundation donor) to lobby the State Department on “federal procurement issues,” according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Bayer did not return a request for comment.

USAID and the State Department appear to have tapped Clinton-connected companies regularly for well intentioned projects around the world.

One month before Hillary Clinton left office, her agency launched an effort to expand the electronic banking sector in Afghanistan.

Citi, the Ford Foundation, Visa, Omidyar Network, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation were each involved in the USAID-backed initiative. All five donated heavily to the Clinton Foundation.

Hillary Clinton kicked off a taxpayer-funded effort to bring health information to pregnant women around the world through their phones in 2011 with the help of two foundation donors — Johnson & Johnson and the United Nations Foundation.

The “Mobile Alliance for Maternal Action” initiative won an award for its innovation in 2012 after being judged by an independent panel that included additional donors to the Clinton Foundation.

The Clinton Health Access Initiative was brought into a State Department health project called the President’s Malaria Initiative alongside two of its major donors.

While the malaria initiative began in the Bush administration, it consumed millions while Hillary Clinton was at the State Department.

Irish Aid, Ireland’s development agency, and the British version of USAID — both foundation donors of between $1 million and $5 million — also shared in the U.S.-backed project in Uganda.

Ireland saw a substantial increase in the money USAID and the State Department spent on operations and projects there while Hillary Clinton was in office.

She even made Ireland the site of her final official trip as secretary of state when she traveled there to receive an award from one of her family foundation’s top donors.

The State Department increased its spending in Ireland from $1.65 million in 2009 to $2.96 million in 2010 and $7.48 million in 2011.

USAID also upped its support of Ireland, taking its funding from nothing in 2008 — the oldest year for which data is available — to $29.87 million the year Clinton came into office.

After the Kingdom of Bahrain donated heavily to the Clinton Foundation, the State Department stepped up its activities in the Middle Eastern nation.

The agency’s contracts, grants, loans and investments in Bahrain climbed from $6.8 million the year before Clinton came to the State Department, to $7.1 million in 2009, to $8.9 million in 2011 and peaked at $11 million during Clinton’s final year in office.

Bahrain also enjoyed nearly $2 million from USAID in 2010, bringing its total State Department funding that year to more than $10 million.

To put that figure in perspective, the State Department spent just $1.9 million on its operations in Trinidad & Tobago, the country whose GDP was closest to Bahrain’s, in 2010. The agency spent just $1.3 million on its operations in Mauritius, the country whose population was closest to Bahrain’s, that same year.

United Arab Emirates and Jamaica, two other countries whose governments donated directly to the Clinton Foundation, also saw the State Department’s funding rise during Clinton’s tenure.

USAID’s support of its operations and other projects in Jamaica crept from $2.8 million the year before Clinton took office to $15.8 million in 2011.

State Department spending in the United Arab Emirates rose from $11.57 million in 2008 to $16.79 million in 2012, peaking in 2010 at $21.18 million.

The Clinton Foundation did not return a request for comment about the nature of its direct work with the State Department while Clinton ran the agency.

The Clintons are so damn cynical it is beyond unreal. They are the posters of official government corruption on planet earth today. And Obama tolerated it for the simple reason that it is the heart and soul of the Democrat Party to be corrupt and to cynically exploit the giant government they keep making more giant to enrich themselves and their cronies who support their ideology and their own palm-greasing.

Here’s another story fresh off the headlines of today appearing on Yahoo News’ feed today:

Just two days after President Obama confirmed that Hillary Clinton would be his secretary of state, Bill Clinton set up a shell corporation to “channel” his payments for unspecified consulting work.

Another day, another revelation about the Clintons’ tangled financial web. (Kudos to Robert Wargas of Pajamas Media for pinning down the date Bill set up his dodge.)

With WJC LLC set up as a limited-liability company with no assets and no employees, there was no need to report any of the cash that passed through it — not on Hillary’s personal disclosure statements then, not on her campaign forms now.

No doubt the Clintons giggled all the way to the bank about their no-funny-business promises to President Obama and his team.

And now Hillary preaches the virtues of “transparency.”

Like everything else about the once “dirt poor” Clintons (now comfortable in the ranks of the 1 percent) the LLC raises huge questions. Questions like those Democrats raised in 2012 about Mitt Romney’s finances.

As the Associated Press (which first reported the existence of the LLC) notes, almost nothing about the exact nature and financial worth of Bill Clinton’s business interests, other than his ultra-lucrative speechmaking, is a matter of public record.

The Clinton camp insists it’s all nothing to worry about, that everything has been disclosed. Then again, that’s what they said before ’fessing up to $26 million in foreign donations they’d “overlooked.”

More snow fell on Boston on Sunday, enough to make this the snowiest season ever on record there.

The National Weather Service said 2.9 inches fell by 7 p.m., pushing total snowfall for the winter of 2014-2015 to 108.6 inches.

That is a full inch over the previous record set during the winter of 1995-1996, the service’s Boston office tweeted, and the most since record books started in 1872.

The achievement brought cheerful, tongue-in-cheek celebration from many of the snow-weary survivors of winter in Boston.

“Putting the win in winter!” tweeted Christina Pazzanese.

“We got the GOLD!” tweeted WBZ weatherman Barry Burbank.

But Michael Wissell spoke for many when he tweeted: ” Sweet. Can we have spring now?”

I mean, the fact that Boston just had the most snowfall EVER doesn’t mean that they’re not still spouting their gibberish. Because liberals are stupid enough and immune enough from reality to look you in the eye and actually believe their own bovine feces when they claim that the global warming alarmists of just fifteen years ago were somehow legitimate “scientists” and that their “climate change” hasn’t been refuted by their own previous fraudulent and foolish predictions.

There have been so many bogus predictions that it is beyond a joke from these fools. But they still have the megaphone over the culture and they’re still making bogus predictions based on their ideology rather than any actual science.

And just as we’ve had droughts throughout the history of planet earth, we’ve had ice ages. None of which had a damn thing to do with human activity.

Climate change has nothing to do with human carbon dioxide pollution. When you learnhow “CO2” became the bogeyman of the left you’ve got to try not to laugh it’s so asinine. In actual fact “anthropogenic CO2 produces less than 0.1 of one percent of the greenhouse effect.” Climate change was an environmental reality before there were any factories or cars or whatever. Climate change was in fact an environmental reality even before there were any humans. But that’s a fact and that’s reality – and liberals despise both facts and reality.

Liberals are liars and frauds and dishonest fools. They always have been. They were liars and frauds and dishonest fools when they claimed that communist socialism was the solution to ending poverty but instead became a boot stomping on a human face for seventy years before collapsing under its economic failure. They were liars and frauds and dishonest fools when they claimed that fascist socialism was the solution to ending poverty but instead produced the Holocaust and World War II before collapsing under its disastrous failure. But the “always learning, but never coming to a knowledge of the truth” fool left is still claiming that European socialism is the answer.

Socialism and “climate change” are the same thing with the same means, the same ends and the same justifications.

I learned that something like twenty years ago during the Kyoto Protocols on global warming. You see, the same people who were screaming Chicken Little-style that we had this godawful crisis and we had to act now, NOW, NOW!!! and gut the U.S. and European economies did a wink-wink and a nod-nod and exempted Russia, China, India and pretty much the entire developing world from having to cut their emissions. You know, while China and India were building mass-polluting coal plants at gargantuan rates.

At that point in time, I had the same views I have today: which is to say, I believed that we were going into the last days when Jesus and the prophets in the Bible told us that weather would go crazy. So I was perfectly willing to accept the climate crazy crazies.

But what the climate crazy crazies ended up doing was to say with their actions that “climate change” wasn’t really much a crisis. Because if it was, the whole WORLD would have to get behind any legitimate effort. And instead all the countries that were communist or socialist or politically correct were getting their waivers and their exemptions and it was only capitalist countries that were being targeted and attacked to gut their economies in order to “save the planet.”

What they really wanted to do was redistribute the wealth in order to save socialism by undermining capitalist economies and propping up socialism with Other People’s Money. And if these pseudo-scientific frauds have to tell you that the moon is made out of cheese to sell that load of crap, they will assure you that the overwhelming majority of scientists believe that the moon is made of cheese.

I have repeatedly pointed out in the past that Barack Obama is no more a Christian and has no more right to claim he’s a Christian than I am a liberal Democrat who has a right to represent the Democrat Party.

The Bible makes it rather clear what it means to be a Christian:

If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is by believing in your heart that you are made right with God, and it is by confessing with your mouth that you are saved. — Romans 10:9,10

And:

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith–and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God–not by works, so that no one can boast. — Ephesians 2:8,9

The Word of God is crystal clear: Christians are people who are saved by their personal faith in the Person and Work of Jesus Christ, who lived a perfect, sinless life representing sinful humanity and then died an Atoning death in our place. And then He bodily rose from the dead, conquering death and hell, such that those who put their trust in Him receive His righteousness and His reward.

And of course there is the beloved john 3:16 as revealed by Jesus:

“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him would not perish, but have eternal life.”

And there are the words of Jesus in Mark 10:45:

“For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

I worked as a community organizer in Chicago. I was very active in low income neighborhoods, working on issues of crime, education and employment, and seeing that in some ways, certain portions of the African-American community are doing as bad if not worse, and recognizing that my fate remains tied up with their fates, that my individual salvation is not going to come about without a collective salvation for the country. Unfortunately, I think that recognition requires we make sacrifices and this country has not always been willing to make the sacrifices necessary to bring about a new day and a new age.

Now, when I found that quote – with the out-of-Obama’s-own-lying-mouth video – at Weasel Zippers, I also enjoyed the accompanying article that simply documented what a grandiose and narcissistic hypocrite and fraud Barack Obama is on every level under the sun:

In addition to the messianic vision inherent in the “I can only be saved if I save the country”, there’s the insulting, pedantic nature of the second part of the phrase “this country has not always been willing to make the sacrifices”. The people of this country, perhaps in some ways, most exemplified by its veterans(like those Obama stepped on during the shutdown), have been willing to make great sacrifices, some even the ultimate sacrifice, to protect this country, its freedoms and the constitution.

What sacrifices has Obama actually made in his rather privileged life?

In 2002, the year before Obama launched his campaign for U.S. Senate, the Obamas reported income of $259,394, ranking them in the top 2 percent of U.S. households, according to Census Bureau statistics. That year the Obamas claimed $1,050 in deductions for gifts to charity, or 0.4 percent of their income. The average U.S. household totaled $1,872 in gifts to charity in 2002, according to the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University.

The national average for charitable giving has long hovered at 2.2 percent of household income, according to the Glenview-based Giving USA Foundation, which tracks trends in philanthropy. Obama tax returns dating to 1997 show he fell well below that benchmark until 2005, the year he arrived in Washington.

Both Obama and his wife, Michelle, declined to respond to questions about their charitable donations.

For the record, socialism is NOT in the Bible. The ONLY place IN the Bible where people were taxed to help the poor WAS IN THE THEOCRACY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. Now if you want an Old Testament theocracy, Democrat, that’s fine by me. But the fact is that you are a hypocrite and a liar and your god is Satan and human government. And realize that even the Old Testament welfare system had nowhere NEAR the redistributionism that the modern engine of Satan that socialism/communism/fascism has. In the New Testament, Jesus was confronted by the poor. There is not ONE SINGLE INSTANCE when Jesus EVER called for government to create anything approaching a welfare state. Rather, He turned to His disciples – who represented the Christian Church – and He said, “YOU feed them” (Mark 6:36-37). And nowhere did the New Testament writers likewise ever call upon the human government that hated everything Christianity stood for to take care of the poor.

I can further point out the fact that liberals don’t WANT us to give money to the poor; they want to force us to give money to the GOVERNMENT. Which happens to be a very big difference, given that a) government gives money out of political, rather than charitable, goals and b) government pisses more money away by the billions than any institutions that ever existed.

So you combine the fact that big-government liberals like Obama are selfish uncharitable with their own money, that liberals in GENERAL are not as giving as the conservatives that they routinely demonize as selfish, that liberals are trying to feed government rather than feed the poor and that if you want government to truly help the poor, well then let’s create a theocracy, and let’s rule out liberalism and the liberals who push for it as having any answers.

But my primary point thus far is that either Christianity is wrong and the Bible that reveals Christianity is wrong, or Barack Obama is NOT a Christian. It was JESUS who served mankind, NOT Barack Obama as a damn community agitator, and it was the work of JESUS that saves, NOT the work of our communist dictator and his “collective salvation.” And in fact Obama’s “collective salvation” is a doctrine right out of the mouth of the devil and not out of the mouth of Jesus or out of the teachings of the Word of God.

I point this out to underscore the fact that Barack Obama is a deep-seated hater and reviler of Christianity as Christianity actually is. Like the United States of America, Barack Obama has “fundamentally transformed” Christianity from what it was revealed to be by Jesus and explained by Paul to what Obama has perverted it into.

“Christianity” as Obama has fundamentally transformed it is the worship of homosexual sodomy on an altar of sixty million innocent human babies murdered by a Democrat Party that is ten times more wicked than the Nazis were according to respective holocaust totals. You read Romans chapter one verses eighteen through thirty-one and try to tell me that the societal embrace of homosexuality isn’t the rock-bottom depth a society can descend to or that it doesn’t bring about the full wrath of a just and holy God. You read Psalms 139:13-16 or Luke 1:41 and you tell me that the Democrat Party is not the party of mass murder on a scale that matches Stalin.

Barack Obama is no more “Christian” than the devil he serves.

And so, as Muslims have been beheading people and making celebratory movies about their work to murder, and as they now put a human being in a cage and burn him alive, Barack Obama has been saying the following. Let me contrast Obama defending Islam with his rabid attack on Christianity.

The Washington Post – which is on the liberal side of newspapers – had this to say in an article about Obama’s constant defense of Islam vis-à-vis terrorism:

Throughout his presidency, President Obama has emphasized one point while talking about Islamist extremists: They are not practicing Islam, he has said, they are perverting it.

He took that a step further Wednesday night. While announcing that he’s expanding the campaign against the Islamic State extremist group into Syria, Obama said flatly that this group, which is trying to install a caliphate in the Middle East, “is not Islamic.” He didn’t say they are perverting their religion; he said they’re not even part of that religion.

“No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of [the Islamic State’s] victims have been Muslim,” Obama said. (Obama refers to the group as ISIL; more on that here.)

While the rest of his speech avoided polarizing language, this statement stands out. That’s because it’s very polarizing. And, in fact, Americans are more inclined to disagree with Obama on this point.

[…]

Another word to add to “polarizing” is the word “demonic.”

Over and over and over again, ad nauseam, Barack Obama has claimed that terrorism has nothing whatsoever to do with Islam.

But let’s just ignore the atrocities that are taking place by the tens of thousands today, Obama says. Because what’s really important to remember is that Christianity is evil:

President Obama used the annual National Prayer Breakfast on Thursday to draw those in attendance to the “terrible deeds” committed “in the name of Christ.”

While speaking at the Washington event, Mr. Obama had harsh words for the Islamic State group, but he also put a spotlight on the Crusades.

“Unless we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ,” Mr. Obama said. SEE ALSO: Obama equates Islamic terrorism with ‘terrible deeds’ committed by Christians
The president added that members of the Sunni radical terror group are part of “brutal vicious death cult that in the name of religion carries out unspeakable acts of barbarism.”

The president’s speech came just days after Jordanian pilot Moaz al-Kassasbeh was burned alive by the Islamic State group. The member of the U.S.-led coalition had been held prisoner since December after his F-16 crashed.

This is the moral equivalence of Lucifer. You have to be demon-possessed to say such a thing, and you have to be demon-possessed to believe it.

This actually, genuinely goes even beyond mere moral equivalence; because Obama implicitly claiming that the reason Islam has nothing to do with terrorism and Christianity is directly responsible for the Crusades also excuses modern Islam in an even deeper, uglier manner – namely, that Christians started the evil during the Crusades and what’s going on today is therefore still Christianity’s fault!

What of course is ignored here is the simple fact that the Crusades themselves began as a Catholic Pope responded to a Christian Emperor’s appeal for aid as his empire was being besieged by Muslim invaders, understand that the same demon-possessed man who has again and again claimed that the murderous and rabid atrocities committed by Muslims in the name of Islam going on AS WE SPEAK have nothing to with Islam, but this same demoniac now argues that we should go back one-thousand years to demonize Christians and identify the Crusades with Christ.

Barack Obama is the worst kind of liar who ever lived in all of history. Compare and contrast Muhammad with Jesus: Jesus told His disciples to put away their sword – because they only HAD one sword between the twelve of them; He’s the One who said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do” to the people who were crucifying Him. His disciples were martyred by the thousands if not by the millions by the kind of government that Barack Obama wishes was his. Muhammad, by contrast, had been in more than thirty military campaigns at the time of his death and actually had another thirty strategically planned that only his death prevented. He was a pedophile by today’s standards, and he certainly killed people and ordered a great many more people put to death. Within less than eighty years of his death, Muhammad’s religion was pouring across Christendom armed with the scimitar, killing and looting. His Muslim forces were finally stopped in France after Islam had viciously crossed the entire continent of Europe, by Charles Martel in 722 AD. And his Muslim forces had murdered their way across Spain, across Africa, across the Holy land of Israel, across most of the sites holy to Christians and Jews.

Barack Obama is a true demoniac to draw a moral equivalence between Christianity and Islam and any kind of acts committed a thousand years ago with acts that are being committed right now, today. Jesus was truly the Prince of Peace; Muhammad was a vicious man of violence. To whatever extent you want to blame Christianity for acts that occurred a thousand years ago as influenced by Medieval societies that were ALL basically barbaric by today’s standards, is there no such thing as “reform”? Apparently not, as Obama has REPEATEDLY asserted that Islam has nothing to do with terrorism but, let’s not forget what those Christians did in the name of Christ.

So Obama – demon-possessed liar and slanderer that he is – blames Christianity for the terror and the slavery that they actually championed to ABOLISH while the very Muslims Obama wickedly protects are still flying high in the sale of BOTH terrorism AND slavery.

Nothing has much changed; weakness inspires boldness and forced conversion from Islam just as it always has.

Kayla Jean Mueller – the female hostage Islamic State claims was killed by Jordan’s response to their murdering of a Jordanian pilot by burning him alive – was just one of those innumerable Christian martyrs. She went to help Muslims because of her faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

And Barack Obama and every single Democrat who is in any way aligned with him just urinated on the faith that Kayla Mueller gave up her life to reveal.

Barack Obama – and every single future resident of hell who voted for his evil – are aiding and abetting those martyrdoms and those who murder Christians with impunity.

Obama is like his father the devil, who was a liar without shame. His words mean nothing; they are twisted, dishonest, slanderous, empty, and full of deceit.

I listen to what Obama’s White House staff is saying Obama will blather in his State of the Union address tonight. And all I can do is think about this fool’s budgets.

Barack Obama is a man who is so profoundly demon-possessed, so out of touch with anything resembling “reality,” that he had his budget defeated 99-0 in a Senate that was under the control of his own damn party:

Two brave Democrats voted for President Obama’s budget on Wednesday, preventing another unanimous defeat for their party leader.

The rest of the chamber, however, had other plans, sending Mr. Obama’s plan to a devastating 413-2 defeat as most Democrats joined Republicans in rejecting the fiscal year 2015 blueprint.

House Republicans staged the vote to be able to argue that Mr. Obama’s plans are unpopular on both sides of the aisle, though Democrats said it was a useless vote and said the plan — which Republicans wrote to reflect the president’s budget — wasn’t actually Mr. Obama’s own plan.

The GOP staged similar votes in 2012, and Mr. Obama’s plan was unanimously defeated in both the House and Senate that year. Last year, Mr. Obama submitted his budget months later than the deadline, which meant the House didn’t even have his plan in time for its own vote.

And that’s the model this jerk, I mean this joke is going to follow tonight.

NOBODY believes that Obama’s speech is going to have any contact with actual reality. Nobody thinks that Obama’s speech will reflect a serious man who actually wants to get something done in Washington.

No, for Barack Obama, it’s about finger-pointing, dividing, trying to demagogue and pit one side or one interest group against another. And that is ALL.

He is presenting himself as a “Robin Hood” according to the leftist newspapers. That’s bullcrap. Number one, Robin Hood actually DID something; he didn’t just stand in front of a teleprompter and read unrealistic gibberish to his religious worshipers. But it goes deeper than that; because contrary to the leftist propaganda, Robin Hood NEVER “stole from the rich and gave to the poor.” NO!!! If you actually bothered to read the stories, Robin Hood stole from the GOVERNMENT that had confiscatory taxes and gave to the poor. Robin Hood stole from the Sheriff of Nottingham, dumbasses. Robin Hood stole from Eric Damn Holder.

When Armageddon comes upon us, just remember it was our Clear-and-Present-Danger-in-Chief who made it all possible as he rabidly refuses to allow Iran to be TOUCHED until AFTER they have built their nukes.

This is what our Clear-and-Present-Danger Incarnate said in 2014 in his State of the Union:

“If Iran’s leaders do not seize this opportunity, then I will be the first to call for more sanctions, and stand ready to exercise all options to make sure Iran does not build a nuclear weapon,” Obama said. “But if Iran’s leaders do seize the chance — and we’ll know soon enough — then Iran could take an important step to rejoin the community of nations, and we will have resolved one of the leading security challenges of our time without the risks of war.”

A full year later – a good twelve months MORE than “soon enough” – Barack Obama has again proved himself a liar as he not only is not “the first to call for more sanctions,” but is rabidly determined to fight to the last American life and veto any bill that would protect the United States and the world from the nuclear weapons that Iran will surely build because there are no consequences for them not to build them.

At this point, Barack Obama is a danger and a disgrace not only to the United States of America, but to the human race and to every single carbon based life form.

Barack Hussein Obama is a demagogue without shame, without integrity, without honesty, without virtue and without honor. He is leading America into a darkness in which it will never escape because he cares NOTHING for our Constitution or our Separation of Powers or our political process or our democracy. And the office of president will be a synonym for “tyrant” forever after as a result of the stench of his regime. Obama epitomizes “tyrant” both in his own character – as he issues sweeping executive power-grabs that have abolished our Constitution, our political system and our democracy while denying he’s doing so – and in his pathetic and apathetic weakness to dictators abroad as he emboldens them to ever more tyranny as he does NOTHING.

The beast is coming, and it is Barack Obama who has laid down the red carpet to welcome him.